Search by
Background and historic context
The dispute concerns a historic church in North Buxton, Ontario, established in 1866 by formerly enslaved people who escaped the United States via the Underground Railroad and settled in the Elgin Settlement. The building, now municipally known as 21991 A.D. Shadd Road, forms part of the Buxton Settlement National Historic Site, recognized as a cultural landscape that commemorates Black refugees’ courage and community-building. The property was originally conveyed in 1866 by deed to several named individuals, collectively described as “the Trustees of Bethel Congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada.” The transfer was expressly for the trustees to hold the land as a place of worship for members of the British Methodist Episcopal Church (BMEC). The deed imposed an express religious trust, requiring the trustees to hold the property for the use of BMEC members and to conduct worship and church business in accordance with the BMEC’s “Doctrine and Discipline” as adopted from time to time at General Conference. For decades, the BMEC operated as an unincorporated religious body, governed by its Doctrine and Discipline, which functions like a constitution and by-laws for worship, governance, property management, and discipline. In 1913, the BMEC was incorporated by a private statute, the British Methodist Episcopal Church Act, 1913, which confirmed the continuing force of the Doctrine and Discipline and set out a comprehensive property-holding structure for BMEC congregations across Ontario.
Statutory vesting and church governance framework
The BMEC Act, 1913 is central to the court’s reasoning. The Act provides that all real and personal property “belonging to, held in trust for, or to the use of” the BMEC is vested in the incorporated church and must be administered for its benefit. North Buxton is expressly identified as a BMEC congregation property in Schedule D to the Act. The statute goes further by deeming that properties listed in Schedule D and held by or in trust for a local congregation are “hereby vested” in the BMEC, to be held upon specified trusts and provisions in Schedule B. Under Schedule B, trustees of such church properties must hold, use and administer them “in trust for” the BMEC. The properties are to be used, maintained and disposed of for the use of the BMEC’s ministry and membership, and subject to directions of its General Conference and Annual Conference, including strict rules on who may preach, how land may be sold, and how proceeds are to be used (including in the event of congregational abandonment). Chapter 5 of the BMEC’s Doctrine and Discipline, incorporated by reference in the statute, emphasizes that trustees hold property in trust for the BMEC and must comply with the deed, the charter and the Discipline in all property-related decisions. This statutory and governance framework meant that, from 1913 onward, legal and beneficial control of North Buxton’s church property lay with the BMEC, even though the original 1866 deed and subsequent land registry entries continued to show trustees as the registered title holders.
Breakaway congregation and incorporation of North Buxton Community Church
Tensions arose between the local congregation and the BMEC around 2000. Congregants expressed discontent about the BMEC’s perceived lack of historical contribution to the property and disputes over pastoral personnel. In 2003, the North Buxton congregation incorporated as “North Buxton Community Church,” using the historic church property as its place of worship and listing the property address as its registered office. In 2004, legal correspondence formalized the parties’ competing claims: the BMEC asserted that, by virtue of the BMEC Act, 1913 and its governance regime, the property remained BMEC property; the local group maintained that it, as a successor to the original Bethel Congregation and its trustees, effectively controlled the site. Over the following years, the parties intermittently explored solutions: conditional return to BMEC, lease arrangements, or vacating the property. No final agreement emerged, and the congregation continued to occupy and use the building independently of the denominational structure.
Procedural history and the land titles registration issues
The 1866 deed was administratively transferred from the registry system to the land titles system in 1993, under the Land Titles Act. The parcel register listed “Trustees of Bethel Congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church” as the registered owner, but with “qualified” title rather than absolute title. Qualified title reflects that title can only be established for a limited period or is subject to reservations and that any such registered owner remains subject to underlying estates, rights, and interests (such as a statutory vesting in a church body). Litigation first commenced in 2017 when the BMEC brought an application seeking recognition of its ownership and vacant possession, but that proceeding was abandoned with an apparent plan to re-file. In the meantime, the BMEC filed an Application to Change Name on title under the Land Titles Act, asking land titles officials to change the registered owner from the historic trustees’ description to the BMEC, characterizing it as a mere administrative correction of name. The plaintiffs characterized this as a fraudulent manoeuvre to sidestep limitation periods and improperly assert BMEC ownership. They obtained a certificate of pending litigation to preserve their position and then, by amended statement of claim in 2018, sought declaratory and related relief on title.
Allegations of a fraudulent instrument and the Director of Titles
As part of the motion, the plaintiffs sought to add the Director of Titles as a party, arguing that the BMEC’s Application to Change Name was a “fraudulent instrument” under the Land Titles Act. They claimed that BMEC wrongfully represented itself as the registered owner while knowing it was not, thereby triggering the statutory mechanism that requires involvement of the Director of Titles to rectify the register. The Director of Titles appeared to assist the court on the proper interpretation of “fraudulent person” and “fraudulent instrument”, but took no position on who owned the property. Emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the land titles system, the Director explained that these terms are narrowly interpreted and that only instruments actually purporting to wrongfully receive or transfer an estate or interest in land through a fraudulent person will qualify. The court accepted that framework and, on the evidence, found no basis to conclude that the BMEC had represented itself as the registered owner in a way that met the statutory definition of fraud. Historical context about the deed and the BMEC Act, 1913 was disclosed in the Application; the error lay in process, not in a covert transfer of interests. Crucially, the court accepted that, even if the BMEC’s Application were misconceived, it could not have legally transferred an estate or interest in land within the land titles system and thus could not be a “fraudulent instrument.” At the same time, the judge found the Application had been made in error during an active title dispute, using the wrong procedural vehicle instead of a proper vesting order application. On that basis, the court ordered that the Application be deleted from the register, but rejected the allegation of fraud and declined to add the Director of Titles as a party.
The plaintiffs’ title theory and failure of proof
Substantively, the plaintiffs advanced a two-pronged theory. First, they asserted that they were, in law, the “Trustees of Bethel Congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church” shown as the registered owner on title, positioning themselves as the current embodiment or successors of the trustees who acquired the property in 1866. Second, they argued that any BMEC claim to register its vested interest was now statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, because BMEC had not pursued a vesting order or title application within ten years of the “crystallization” of the dispute in 2004. On the first point, the court found a complete evidentiary vacuum. The pleadings asserted that the Bethel Congregation is an unincorporated association that has continuously occupied the property since 1866 and still worships in the same church, but these were bare assertions. The plaintiffs provided no concrete evidence of how the trustees were constituted over time, who held the office of trustee at any point since 1866, or by what mechanism the present plaintiffs could claim to be the lawful successors in title or in trust to those original trustees. Compounding this, the contemporary documents from the early 2000s identified the operating congregation as “E.A. Richardson” or “E.A. Richardson British Methodist Episcopal Church,” not as Bethel Congregation. This undermined the notion of a continuous, distinct Bethel entity. The court accepted that the Bethel Congregation, as referenced in the 1866 deed, functioned as an unincorporated religious association that lacked capacity to hold property in its own name; property could only be held through trustees. Yet there was no constitution, governance record, or trustee succession evidence before the court to link the 1866 trustees with the present-day plaintiffs or to show that the Bethel Congregation, as such, had a continuous legal identity distinct from the BMEC. This failure of proof was fatal to the plaintiffs’ claim to be the registered owner.
Effect of the 1866 deed and the BMEC trust structure
The court closely analyzed the available transcript of the 1866 deed. While it was incomplete and sometimes difficult to read, its key terms were clear. The trustees were expressly designated as trustees “of Bethel Church in connection with the British Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada,” and they were to hold the land “for the use of the members of the said British Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada,” conducting services and church business in accordance with the BMEC’s discipline as determined by its General Conference. This language made it clear that from inception the property was held on express trust for the BMEC’s use and under its governance, not as a free-standing congregational asset that could be severed at will. The court found that the plaintiffs’ portrayal of the Bethel Congregation as an independent, self-determining entity controlling the property conflicted with the historical record. When read alongside the BMEC Act, 1913 and the Doctrine and Discipline, the trust structure placed ultimate control of the North Buxton church property squarely in the BMEC. Congregants were free to withdraw their membership and form a new church, but they could not thereby take the BMEC’s trust property with them.
Interaction of the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act and trustee succession
The plaintiffs pointed to the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act to bolster their claim to continuity of trustee identity and perpetual succession. The court held that this statute did not fill their evidentiary gaps; it reinforced them. To benefit from the Act’s mechanism that allows religious organizations to hold land through perpetually-succeeding trustees, a group must prove it is a qualifying “religious organization,” including showing that it is charitable and permanently established in its beliefs, rituals, practices, and structures. Those preconditions require exactly the kind of consistent organizational and governance proof that the plaintiffs had not provided. Without documentary proof of the Bethel Congregation’s independent, long-standing structure and practice, the Act could not be invoked to retroactively construct an unbroken line of trusteeship or congregational identity in separation from the BMEC.
Limitations, land titles, and the nature of the BMEC’s interest
On the limitation issue, the plaintiffs argued that under section 69(1)(a) of the Land Titles Act, the BMEC should have applied within ten years of the 2004 correspondence to be registered as owner pursuant to the statutory vesting in the BMEC Act, 1913. They contended that any right to do so expired under sections 4 and 15 of the Real Property Limitations Act, which provide a ten-year limitation for actions “to recover any land or rent,” and that this extinguished BMEC’s property interest. The court rejected this argument on several fronts. First, it was far from clear that 2004 marked the accrual of any cause of action under the Real Property Limitations Act; the factual record about dispossession or the nature of occupation between 2003 and 2017 was thin. Second, the court clarified that, although section 4 is no longer confined to traditional adverse possession, an application for a vesting order or to register an already statutorily vested interest is not an “action to recover land.” A vesting order merely gives effect to a previously determined right, rather than obtaining land by judgment. The BMEC’s substantive entitlement was fixed more than a century ago by the BMEC Act, 1913; the later application in land titles is a procedural mechanism, not the source of the right. Third, the Land Titles Act itself deems a first application for registration to be an “action for the recovery of land” for limitation purposes, but it says nothing similar about applications to be registered pursuant to a statutory vesting under section 69(1). That specific deeming language signalled that the legislature did not intend all such vesting-related steps to be caught by the real property limitation regime. Finally, the court emphasized that even if a limitation period could bar a particular procedural step for registration, it could not extinguish a statutorily vested proprietary right under the BMEC Act, 1913, especially given that legislation is “always speaking.” The property remains vested in the BMEC as a matter of law; at most, the registered owner (here, the historic trustees) holds a qualified, registered title subject to BMEC’s robust unregistered statutory and equitable interests.
Nature and limits of “qualified” title in this context
The parcel register for the North Buxton property indicated that the fee simple was converted to “qualified” title upon administrative transfer to the land titles system in 1993. Under the Land Titles Act, qualified title arises when examination shows that title can only be established for a limited period or is subject to reservations. A registered owner with qualified title remains subject to existing estates, rights, or interests and may apply for upgrade to absolute title if they wish. The court found that the qualified title designation here is consistent with the historic reality: the trustees’ registered interest has always been constrained by the express trust and statutory vesting in favour of the BMEC. Therefore, any assumption that registration alone gave the trustees “perfect title” was misplaced. The foundation of the plaintiffs’ argument—that appearing on the register equals conclusive ownership capable of being used to exclude BMEC—could not survive the overlay of trust law, statutory vesting, and the nature of qualified title.
Outcome and implications for the parties
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for an order conveying title to the Trustees of North Buxton Community Church. It held that the plaintiffs had not proved they are the trustees named in the 1866 deed or valid successors to them and that, in any event, the deed and the BMEC Act, 1913 definitively place control of the property in the BMEC, not in a breakaway congregation. The limitation argument under the Real Property Limitations Act failed, as it could not extinguish the BMEC’s statutory and equitable rights or bar a proper vesting application under section 69 of the Land Titles Act or section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act. The court did, however, grant the plaintiffs’ request to delete the BMEC’s Application to Change Name from the register, finding it to have been procedurally erroneous but not fraudulent, and declined to add the Director of Titles as a party. The judge declined to make a “boomerang” order directly vesting title in the BMEC in this motion, noting the absence of a BMEC cross-motion for such relief, the existence of a certificate of pending litigation, and the need for proper procedural steps. Instead, the court indicated that the BMEC should bring an appropriate application on notice if it seeks a vesting order or related relief and reminded both sides that the Land Titles Act should not be “weaponized” in the interim. Claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and punitive damages pleaded by the plaintiffs remain to be determined in future proceedings. As a practical matter, the decision is substantively favourable to the BMEC on ownership and control of the church property. The court’s reasons underline that BMEC holds a statutorily vested, unregistered interest that continues to bind the property and constrain any attempt by the breakaway congregation to transfer or re-characterize title. No final costs order or damages award was made in this motion; the parties were encouraged to agree on costs and, failing agreement, to submit short written arguments. Accordingly, the successful party in terms of substantive property rights is the British Methodist Episcopal Church, but the exact monetary amount of any costs or other financial award in its favour cannot be determined from this decision alone.
Download documents
Plaintiff
Defendant
Other
Court
Superior Court of Justice - OntarioCase Number
CV-18-173Practice Area
Real estateAmount
Not specified/UnspecifiedWinner
DefendantTrial Start Date