Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Laskin, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A.
• Date: 06 May 2011
• Citation: (2011), 285 O.A.C. 354 (CA),2011 ONCA 728
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Hart v. R.C. Episcopal (2011), 285 O.A.C. 354 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.037

Reverend Brian Hart (plaintiff/appellant) v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada (defendant/respondent)

(C52714; 2011 ONCA 728)

Indexed As: Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A.

November 22, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiff, an ordained priest, alleged that he had been constructively dismissed by the defendant Archdiocese. The defendant moved under rule 21 to stay the action on the basis that its relationship with the plaintiff was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law, such that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 4709, granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Churches - Topic 1083

Internal government - Clergy - Dismissal or suspension - Remedies for - [See second Practice - Topic 5277.1 ].

Courts - Topic 2007

Jurisdiction - General principles - Issues not suitable for judicial determination - Religious doctrine or dispute - [See both Practice - Topic 5277.1 ].

Courts - Topic 2282.1

Jurisdiction - Bars - Failure to exhaust regulatory remedies - [See second Practice - Topic 5277.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5277.1

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Abuse of process - The plaintiff, an ordained priest, alleged that he had been constructively dismissed by the defendant Archdiocese - Beaudoin, J., granted the defendant's motion under rule 21 to stay the action on the basis that its relationship with the plaintiff was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law, such that the court lacked jurisdiction - The proceedings were an abuse of process - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that Beaudoin, J., had erred by making findings of fact on disputed issues - Although evidence was admissible on a jurisdiction motion, the motion judge's fact-finding powers were limited to those facts necessary to decide jurisdiction - This was to prevent a jurisdictional challenge from becoming a mini-trial and "thereby doing an 'end run' around what should properly be a motion for summary judgment" - Four of the five findings that the plaintiff challenged related to the question of the court's jurisdiction over the claim - Not one was a "disputed central question of fact relating to its merits" - The second finding, the chronology of events, simply put the jurisdictional argument in context - Beaudoin, J., was entitled to make all five findings to decide whether the court had jurisdiction - See paragraphs 8 to 14.

Practice - Topic 5277.1

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Abuse of process - The plaintiff, an ordained priest, alleged that he had been constructively dismissed by the defendant Archdiocese - Beaudoin, J., granted the defendant's motion under rule 21 to stay the action on the basis that its relationship with the plaintiff was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law, such that the court lacked jurisdiction - The proceedings were an abuse of process - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - As a general rule, the Superior Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of wrongful dismissal and breach of an employment contract - One exception to that rule was where the rules of a self-governing organization, particularly a religious organization, provided an internal dispute resolution process - A person who voluntarily chose to be a member of a self-governing organization and who had been aggrieved by a decision of that organization had to seek redress in the internal procedures of the organization - The courts would interfere in only two situations: where the organization's internal processes were unfair or did not meet the requirements of natural justice or where the aggrieved party had exhausted the organization's internal processes - The defendant here was a self-governing organization - Beaudoin, J., found that the internal review process under canon law met the requirements of natural justice - The plaintiff's dispute was ecclesiastical in nature and subject to canon law - Redress had to be sought through the internal review process - See paragraphs 15 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 11].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 17].

Levitts Kosher Foods v. Levin (1999), 45 O.R.(3d) 147 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada v. Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St. Mary the Protectress (Trustees), [1940] S.C.R. 586, refd to. [para. 19].

Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren et al. v. Hofer et al., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 165; 142 N.R. 241; 81 Man.R.(2d) 1; 30 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Mott-Trille v. Steed (1996), 27 O.R.(3d) 486 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

R. Steven Baldwin, for the appellant;

Andrea Risk, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 2011, by Laskin, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On November 22, 2011, Laskin, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.