Religious wars are the worst. Despite historical precedent to the contrary, we are always amazed when religious folk act in the opposite way we expect and become so entrenched in their positions that rational thought seems to completely escape them.Like it or not, we hold the religious to a higher standard. That may not be fair, but it’s the way it is.
Erica Davis was the pastor at the British Methodist Episcopal Church in Guelph, Ont., for 13 years until she was replaced on July 13, 2008.
Unfortunately, her departure was less than graceful. One collateral effect of her dismissal was the requirement that she surrender the church property and vacate its premises, something she had little inclination to do.
Those events crystallized a vision in the pastor’s mind that the church owed her money for her many years of service, about a quarter of a million dollars, in fact.
According to the court reports, the congregants, acting more or less as spectators at a tennis match watching the volleys go back and forth between the church authorities and the pastor, entered the fray at this point.
They tried to resolve the dilemma by offering an unexpected solution. Instead of paying this alleged debt in the cold hard cash that was being demanded, they generously offered up their real estate to pacify the embittered cleric. Davis, likely astonished, gladly obliged. So a tidy resolution was achieved and averted.
Not so fast. Lo and behold, the church authorities revealed an explanation for the congregants’ remarkable willingness to offer up their cherished house of worship as a way to rid themselves of this headache. They didn’t own it; the church did.
Well, offering Davis the kitchen sink, so to speak, and then immediately snatching it away appears to have had the same effect as waving a red blanket in front of a bull. The dispute went from bad to worse.
Davis dug in her heels. She wasn’t going anywhere. So the church went to court to get her out. At the hearing, the pastor obstinately and unwisely absented herself, thereby depriving herself of the benefit of a fair hearing. The result was disastrous.
The court, absorbing a one-sided version of events in British Methodist Episcopal Church v. Davis, promptly ordered her to give up interim possession of the property, hand over her keys, stop interfering at worship services, and not return there without the church’s consent.
With her back against the wall, Davis grasped at straws. She appealed the order. Still unrepresented and clearly over her head, her appeal was quickly dispensed with. In fact, the court reaffirmed the previous orders and warned her of contempt proceedings if she remained obstinate.
This had no effect upon Davis. Seemingly intent on digging herself as deep a hole as possible, she defiantly scripted a letter to the church’s lawyers confirming she had no intention to vacate and adding, in language atypical for a pastor, that they were “looking for trouble, and someone could get hurt.”
With more ammunition in hand, the church went back to court. Her letter poured gasoline on the fire. The court held her in contempt of the court, as it had previously warned it would do, and reaffirmed the church’s ownership of the property.
Showing remarkable patience, however, the court gave her 10 more days to come to her senses. It may as well have been 10 years. Two months later, back in court for the fourth time, the church reported that still nothing had changed. An order for her incarceration resulted. It’s not every day that a court makes an order to arrest a defiant cleric.
Davis’ options were quickly running out. She played the appeal card again, this time to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The nice thing about going to this court is the amount of time it takes to get a hearing. This tactic bought her a year. One year later, before a panel of three judges, Davis appeared to have relented a bit.
She said she had abandoned any claim over the ownership of the property; had stopped attending the church premises; was no longer going to the services; had handed in her keys; and had given up all of the church property in her possession.
The court declared she had purged her contempt and that therefore there was no longer a need for an arrest warrant. As a result, the proceedings were dismissed.
So the battle was finally over, or maybe not. What would motivate Davis to prolong the battle at this point is anyone’s guess.
One can only speculate that the last administrative point made by the Court of Appeal in dismissing her case had reopened the wound. Unbelievably, she made another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On June 3, the top court made short work of that appeal, too. Thank goodness there’s no higher court in this country. That should be the end of it. By my count, there were six substantive court rulings made in this case. That likely means dozens of court appearances.
The vast majority of cases in the judicial system settle before a hearing. For all of the public’s criticism about the efficiency of the courts, that must mean something. Of the small fraction of cases that do go to a hearing, another small percentage continues on to an appeal.
Hardly any make it to the top court. With those that do, when all is said and done and contrary to the impassioned views of the combatants, it’s often difficult to identify who wears the white hat. Much blood was shed in this battle. We all should cringe when we read about it.
David van der Woerd practises at Ross & McBride LLP in Hamilton, Ont. He can be reached at 905-572-5803 or [email protected].
Erica Davis was the pastor at the British Methodist Episcopal Church in Guelph, Ont., for 13 years until she was replaced on July 13, 2008.
Unfortunately, her departure was less than graceful. One collateral effect of her dismissal was the requirement that she surrender the church property and vacate its premises, something she had little inclination to do.
Those events crystallized a vision in the pastor’s mind that the church owed her money for her many years of service, about a quarter of a million dollars, in fact.
According to the court reports, the congregants, acting more or less as spectators at a tennis match watching the volleys go back and forth between the church authorities and the pastor, entered the fray at this point.
They tried to resolve the dilemma by offering an unexpected solution. Instead of paying this alleged debt in the cold hard cash that was being demanded, they generously offered up their real estate to pacify the embittered cleric. Davis, likely astonished, gladly obliged. So a tidy resolution was achieved and averted.
Not so fast. Lo and behold, the church authorities revealed an explanation for the congregants’ remarkable willingness to offer up their cherished house of worship as a way to rid themselves of this headache. They didn’t own it; the church did.
Well, offering Davis the kitchen sink, so to speak, and then immediately snatching it away appears to have had the same effect as waving a red blanket in front of a bull. The dispute went from bad to worse.
Davis dug in her heels. She wasn’t going anywhere. So the church went to court to get her out. At the hearing, the pastor obstinately and unwisely absented herself, thereby depriving herself of the benefit of a fair hearing. The result was disastrous.
The court, absorbing a one-sided version of events in British Methodist Episcopal Church v. Davis, promptly ordered her to give up interim possession of the property, hand over her keys, stop interfering at worship services, and not return there without the church’s consent.
With her back against the wall, Davis grasped at straws. She appealed the order. Still unrepresented and clearly over her head, her appeal was quickly dispensed with. In fact, the court reaffirmed the previous orders and warned her of contempt proceedings if she remained obstinate.
This had no effect upon Davis. Seemingly intent on digging herself as deep a hole as possible, she defiantly scripted a letter to the church’s lawyers confirming she had no intention to vacate and adding, in language atypical for a pastor, that they were “looking for trouble, and someone could get hurt.”
With more ammunition in hand, the church went back to court. Her letter poured gasoline on the fire. The court held her in contempt of the court, as it had previously warned it would do, and reaffirmed the church’s ownership of the property.
Showing remarkable patience, however, the court gave her 10 more days to come to her senses. It may as well have been 10 years. Two months later, back in court for the fourth time, the church reported that still nothing had changed. An order for her incarceration resulted. It’s not every day that a court makes an order to arrest a defiant cleric.
Davis’ options were quickly running out. She played the appeal card again, this time to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The nice thing about going to this court is the amount of time it takes to get a hearing. This tactic bought her a year. One year later, before a panel of three judges, Davis appeared to have relented a bit.
She said she had abandoned any claim over the ownership of the property; had stopped attending the church premises; was no longer going to the services; had handed in her keys; and had given up all of the church property in her possession.
The court declared she had purged her contempt and that therefore there was no longer a need for an arrest warrant. As a result, the proceedings were dismissed.
So the battle was finally over, or maybe not. What would motivate Davis to prolong the battle at this point is anyone’s guess.
One can only speculate that the last administrative point made by the Court of Appeal in dismissing her case had reopened the wound. Unbelievably, she made another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On June 3, the top court made short work of that appeal, too. Thank goodness there’s no higher court in this country. That should be the end of it. By my count, there were six substantive court rulings made in this case. That likely means dozens of court appearances.
The vast majority of cases in the judicial system settle before a hearing. For all of the public’s criticism about the efficiency of the courts, that must mean something. Of the small fraction of cases that do go to a hearing, another small percentage continues on to an appeal.
Hardly any make it to the top court. With those that do, when all is said and done and contrary to the impassioned views of the combatants, it’s often difficult to identify who wears the white hat. Much blood was shed in this battle. We all should cringe when we read about it.
David van der Woerd practises at Ross & McBride LLP in Hamilton, Ont. He can be reached at 905-572-5803 or [email protected].
