Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ownership of cemetery lands traced through historical deeds from 1858 and 1921.

• The municipality maintained the cemetery without formal title due to a lack of active ownership.

• Absence of any representative or opposition from the named religious respondents.

• Registrar under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act took no position on the application.

• Cemetery declared legally abandoned due to lack of known, capable owner.

• Court granted title and transfer relief to the City to ensure public management of burial plots.

Background and ownership history

The City of Quinte West applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to obtain legal ownership of the Stone Church United Cemetery. The cemetery’s legal ownership had become uncertain over time, despite two existing historical deeds. One deed from 1858 listed the Trustees of the Fourth Congregation of Sidney Congregation of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada as owners, while a later 1921 deed registered title in the name of the Trustees of the Methodist Church. However, no members of either entity had engaged with or maintained the cemetery in decades.

Municipal involvement and need for relief

Since the late 1990s, and particularly from 2017 onward, the City had been providing upkeep and financial support for the cemetery, prompted by long-serving board member Jack Rushnell. Although the City was legally permitted to maintain the cemetery, it required a court order to assume ownership and legal responsibility—especially due to the existence of about 60 unclaimed burial plots with outstanding deeds. This situation created uncertainty for both the City and plot owners.

Procedural challenges and court directions

In its application, the City also asked the court to waive procedural requirements, including the need to serve legal materials on the named religious trustees and to file a formal factum. The court reviewed this request over three appearances. While it eventually dispensed with service on the respondents—none of whom appeared or responded—the court initially withheld a decision until the Registrar under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act was properly notified.

The City subsequently complied by serving the Registrar, who responded through the Bereavement Authority of Ontario indicating no objection. The court then proceeded to assess the substantive request for a declaration of abandonment and title transfer.

Evidence considered by the court

The court considered affidavits from City staff and Jack Rushnell. These outlined the history of management, the lack of involvement from the original trustees, and the treatment of the City as the managing authority by both the Bereavement Authority of Ontario and the Ministry of the Attorney General. Notably, Mr. Rushnell confirmed that throughout nearly six decades on the cemetery board, he had never encountered any interest or contact from the respondent churches or affiliated persons.

Legal findings and statutory interpretation

The court relied on sections 101.1(1) and (2) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, which allow a person (including a municipality) to apply for a declaration of abandonment if the current owner is unknown or unable to maintain the cemetery. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that these conditions were satisfied: no identifiable or active owner existed, and the City had been fulfilling operational responsibilities for several years.

Final decision and implications

Justice Sylvia Corthorn ruled in favor of the City. The court declared the cemetery abandoned, granted the City ownership, and ordered all necessary steps for title transfer. The ruling ensures public oversight of the cemetery and allows the City to manage it lawfully, especially with respect to plot deed holders. No costs were awarded in the matter.

The decision provides clarity in situations where historical religious property has effectively fallen into disuse and highlights how municipalities can step in under statutory authority to preserve public interest.