OVERVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE OLD ST. PHILIP'S CHURCH

May 11, 2010

On December 7, 2009, the Town received a letter from St. Philip's Anglican Parish requesting a demolition permit for the old church. Members of the Town Council met several times with members of the Church Vestry, and members of the Church by the Sea Committee , both singly and together, to try and reach a resolution.

A letter from the lawyer for the Parish to Council on February 4, 2010, with respect to their understanding that permission for the permit would be deferred, stated: "We would also advise that Council may expose itself to liability by acting outside its jurisdiction and lawful authority. Furthermore, individual Councilors who act outside the jurisdiction granted to Council may also be exposing themselves to personal liability." In light of this, Council very carefully considered its legislation and in consultation with its legal consultant, the legal consultant wrote: "In the present circumstances, the Town is well within its authority (not only to defer, but) to refuse the demolition permit."

A letter from the lawyer for the Parish on March 9, 2010 stated ".. if a decision is not rendered by Council eight (8) weeks from the date of our February 4, 2010 correspondence, the Anglican Parish of St. Philip will deem the Application for demolition of the subject property to have been refused and will take the necessary legal steps to proceed further."

The Town then requested the Parish to submit a formal application form for a demolition permit and brought this to Council on March 30 which was rejected by a vote of 6-1. This was a difficult decision for Council. They hoped there could be a resolution that would see no costs to the Parish, yet preserve the historic building. There was no deliberate attempt to move against the Parish. The Town Plan directs Council to "encourage the preservation of older buildings within the Heritage community." The Plan further states: "The preservation of older buildings, structures, and sites that form an important part of the Town's historical and cultural legacy, and their visual appearance, shall be a priority." In addition to the visual appearance and location of the building, it was this church that was standing in 1905 when Rev. Canon Smith renamed Broad Cove as St. Philip's, after the church. Those voting to reject demolition, believed there must be some way to preserve the historic building in the best interests of all and believed that more time would help. The proposal to the Parish by the Church by the Sea Committee indicated they would take "full responsibility (financial and otherwise) for the building for a 3 to 4 year trial period with the intention of perpetual responsibility." Council agreed with the Committee's understanding that this was in keeping with the Bishop's letter at the time of building the new church, to "dispose" of the old one - not necessarily to demolish it.

That very same night and/or next morning person/s sawed through the steeple and pulled it down. The Parish or Diocese would not direct the RNC to investigate. Therefore, Council feared this was the beginning of more vandalism and next day passed a motion declaring the church a heritage building in accordance with the authority under Section 200 (1) and 414 (dd) of the Municipalities Act. This would have the effect of leaving the building intact as much as possible until further discussions could be held. Council provided security for the weekend which was then passed over to volunteers from the Church by the Sea Committee. A $500 reward for knowledge of those vandalizing the church was also offered. Later, volunteers agreed to pay this money.

Because neither the Parish nor the Diocese would direct the RNC to investigate, Council requested an injunction which would give Council the authority to ask the RNC to investigate in case of further vandalism. The judge requested that all parties further discuss the situation towards a resolution. If the parish or diocese had directed the RNC to investigate, there would be no need of any injunction.

Correspondence from the Diocese of April 15 was received from the Town's legal consultant on April 16, However, before Council could respond to that, on the evening of April 17, pews were removed from the church. The RNC were called and these pews had to be returned. The security provided by the Church by the Sea Committee was questioned by the Parish. In consultation with a majority of Council, the mayor wrote a note approving this security. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada recommend protecting such designations from vandalism. The Church by the Sea Committee continued to provide security but on April 19 were told by Parish officials they must leave the property. This time, a letter was received by Council from the Diocese lawyer stating: "Therefore we wish to advise you that, pursuant to the Defamation Act, the Diocesan Synod formally requests a public apology and a retraction of the letter which purports to authorize the Church by the Sea Committee to arrange security for the Synod's property. Should this apology and retraction not be received in a timely manner, we reserve the right to pursue all available rights and remedies available to our client under the law." The security were then advised to monitor from the public road. In response to calls for the dismissal of a councilor involved in removing pews, this was investigated through Municipal Affairs who indicated there was no basis for any action to be taken.
The Bishop of the Diocese distributed a letter headed Easter 2010 and in it, stated: "It is regretful that the media, and particularly, the town, has chosen to show the church in such poor light." The Town acted within its legislation and tried to be as objective as possible on the matter. It never chose to show the Parish in a poor light.

Next, in a letter to the Town dated April 21, 2010, the lawyer for the diocese appealed two decisions of Council - that of the demolition permit, and of declaring the church a heritage building. These must go before the Municipal Appeals Board.

Since the Parish nor the Diocese would direct the RNC to investigate the vandalism, the Town filed a complaint with the RNC under Sections 194, 419, and 421 of the Municipalities Act. However, the lawyer for the RNC advised that because of the vagueness of the interpretation of Section 194 it would be unlikely to get a conviction.

The RNC did advise the Town of different options. A security camera could be placed on the public road by interested parties to monitor activity at the entrance of the church. Under Section 421 of the Municipalities Act, the Town could proceed to investigate and prosecute the case on its own in civil court. But a conviction may be unlikely in light of Section 194 of the Municipalities Act.

In the meantime, the steeple sits where it fell on March 30/31.

Council�s intent was to avoid the possible destruction of one of the Town�s most prominent structures. Council is encouraging its residents to come together and cooperate to support discussions that could lead to a resolution. At this time, it is suggested that St. Philip's Anglican Parish and/or the Diocesan Synod get together with the Church by the Sea Inc to see if a resolution can be brought to this matter.
It is also suggested that the Parish or Diocese ask the RNC to investigate the vandalism as there are many rumours and accusations occurring throughout the town, which is unfair to those who are being associated with these.