|
Highlights from Judge Dunphy's decision
“[162] There are no allegations of breach of trust in what I might characterize as the “traditional” sense of the word. The allegations before me relate to the method of appointment of trustees themselves and to disagreements as to whether certain activities undertaken by the corporation are or are not within the objects originally established for the trust and the corporation that is now charged with fulfilling its objects. The public interest does not require the appointment of an investigator with a general mandate to see what can be seen. [163] It may be that circumstances will subsequently come to light that may warrant an investigation. I shall not be drawn into speculating what those circumstances might be. It is sufficient to say that nothing before me has singly or in combination raised a level of concern sufficient to warrant the calling for an investigation. Disposition [164] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the applicants are entitled to the following declarations: a. MPGC is required to be governed by a board of not more than seven trustees each of whom is required to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the 1826 Act as amended by the 1849 Act; b. None of the ten current directors of MPGC has been validly appointed as a trustee of MPGC and none has the authority to appoint a new or replacement trustee; c. MPGC continues to hold its assets as a trustee for the purposes of the trust created by the 1826 Act as amended by statute thereafter; d. The trust administered by MPGC is a charitable trust; e. MPGC is a trustee within the meaning of s. 1(2) of the Charities Accounting Act, and f. The funding and operation of visitation centres and the CMS funeral home business is beyond the scope of the existing statutory trust administered by MPGC. [165] As noted earlier, I am declining to make any declarations in relation to the operation of the crematorium business without prejudice to a further application being made in that regard on better and more detailed evidence. ... [168] I am ordering that the seven most senior directors of MPGC currently in office shall be appointed by the court as trustees of MPGC and that notice of such appointment shall be placed in the Ontario Gazette prior to March 31, 2019… [169] It shall be open to the applicants to call a public meeting in accordance with the provisions of the 1849 Act which public meeting may, if so advised, elect one or more inhabitant householders of the City of Toronto* in replacement of one or more of the seven trustees named by me. [170] I am directing the parties to negotiate a protocol to govern the calling and holding of the public meeting in question for approval by me. If a consensual protocol cannot be worked out, I may be approached for directions in that regard… [172] The applicants have been substantially successful in their application and are entitled to their costs of this application from MPGC. They have not acted for their personal benefit but to vindicate an important public interest…” * The township of York and the village of Yorkville are now part of the City of Toronto since the amalgamation of the former borough of York with Toronto." |
Notes from FTPC
We did not specifically address the issue of whether or not MPGC could continue to operate crematoria in our filings with the court. FTPC continued to probe and gather information regarding the finances and conduct of MPGC after the initiation of the court case in 2013. As the filings to the court were made five years ago, just after initiation of the publishing by MPGC of summary financials, other analyses regarding e.g. industry comparison ratios such as salaries and general expenses costs as a portion of revenues, and other forensic analyses, were never provided to the court. The judge may only make a ruling on the evidence before him that has been provided by the parties. |
