Minders, Grinders, and Robertson, 1919-38

• Author: C. Ian Kyer
• Pages: 159-198



M C hapter N

MINDERS, GRINDERS,

AND RO BERTS O N

N  anendtothewari nEuropeForthermit

meant the return of Pickup and Ca lvin from military service. For many busi

nessmen it meant that they were again able to dedicate themselves to their

businesses In a  February report to the sha reholdersof St Mary s

Cement Limited, George Horace Gooderham, George’s third son, set out the

challenges business faced following t he war: “labour shortage, high wages,

exorbitant prices for supplies, and increased freight charges to say nothing

ofthee pidemicofinuenza duringt hemonths ofOctoberNovemberand

December” and a workforce made up of returned soldiers who had to be paid

full wages but could not be expected to be as productive as before the war.

St. Mary’s Cement had faced management issues from its very inception.

On April not quite four months before Britain declared war a nd

broughtCanada into the conict the rm had incorporated the company

which was being nanced by the Goo derhamfa milyIt was done using

membersof the rm as the rst incorporators andd irectorsT hust helet

ters patent listed the incorporators and provisional directors as four of t he

lawyersi n the rm  Alex Fasken George Sedgewick Jimmy Aitchison

and JW Pickup  as well as t he rmsaccountants Archiba ldSt ruthers

andThomasOrmsbyCoxandastudentatlawPeterRa ndolphRitchieThe

expectation was that shortly after i ncorporation these interim shareholders

and directors would resign and tran sfer their shares to George H. Gooder

ham and other members of the Gooderham fam ily. The declaration of war

ﾅﾊﾄLawyersFamiliesandBusinesses

mea ntt hat th isd idn oth appe nu nti lla te Th roug hou tth ewa rme mbe rs

ofthe lawrm actedas directorsa ndassisted AlexFaskenin the manage

ment of the cement company to permit their clients to focus on the war ef

fortAs lawyersca meand wenti nthe rm the directors changed butthe

rmscommitmentcontinued

At about the same time as the retur ning men were starting work, David

Fasken formally retired from active practice. He turned h is focus completely

awayfromlawsomuchsothatwhenDav idandArnoldHoma ntwoBos

tonminingeng ineersmetDavidinthesinconnec tionwithworkthey

were doing in Flin Flon, they did not realize t hat he was a lawyer. To t hem

he was “a wealthy Haileyburian . . . lumberman and waterpower magnate.”

Alextheyk newasalaw yerinTorontointyshrewdovercautious but

Davidwasassociatedwithnorther nOntarioandh isextralegalbusinesses

They may have been confused about David’s profession but they were in no

doubt about his personality and that of his “wily lawyer” brot her: “Dave . . .

wasbluandgenerousashisbrotherAlecwascurta ndfrugal



David had begun to experience health problems arising f rom high blood

pressurethatwouldplaguet helastdecadeofhisl ifeMuchofhisaention

continued to be directed at the C Ranc h in Texas. T he purchase of the Texas

property had cost him a great deal of money and had led to litigation. When

Fasken discovered that he had been misled over the presence of water on

the property, he contemplated legal action against his business agent, Wil

liam Harvey, who had arranged the purchase. Instead he found himself

defending an action by W.J. Moran, who claimed to have brought the prop

ertyto theaentionof Harveyandto beoweda realestatecom missionon

the purchase. To Fasken, the Moran litigation was adding insult to injury.

He had never wanted to purchase and operate a ranch in Texas. This was to

have been a land development deal. To be u nable to resell the land because

there was no water (something he had expressly told Harvey to be sure of)

and then be sued for a commission on the purc hase was galling to hi m.

Nevertheless, while working with Andrew Fasken to make his investment

worthwhile, he defended and won this action.

Z

D     by some longsimmering family troubles that

endedupbeforethecourtsinTexa sInhissonRobertmarriedaRoman

CatholicwomanhehadmetatFaskenscoageintheTemagamiregionThe

Ferlandfamilyhada coagenearbyandwhi leinhislateteensRobert met

MindersGrindersandRobertsonﾅﾊﾅ

and fell in love with May Ferland. She was a student at the Toronto Conserv

atory of Music. When David’s w ife learned of the relationship, she promptly

took her son on an extended visit to Europe. On his retur n, however, Robert

discovered that May had gone to Boston for further musical study. He found

an excuse to visit Boston and the couple were married there i n a Roman

Catholic service. As Robert had no job, he and May moved into his parents’

home on University Avenue.

Although itwas a large house it was notbig enough for mother and

daughterinlaw When David Jrwas born on  April and baptised

Catholicmaersbecameeven worseMayfoundthe stressofdeal ingwith

hermotherinlaw toomuch and suereda nervous breakdownShe went

to a sanatorium in Barrie, leaving her baby in the care of her husband and

motherinlawAfteratimeshereturned totheFaskenhomeinTorontobut

nothing had changed and she agai n broke down. Her husband agreed to let

her go to stay with her parents up north but insisted on having his mot her

look after the baby. When May left, Robert’s mother packed up her son and

grandchild and went to Texas, where they lived in a house that Fasken had

bought for them in the town of Midland, near the ranch. David Fasken and

his wife never again lived together.

May did not learn of the move until she received notice that her husband

hadledfor divorcein TexasShesucce ssful lydefendedt hedivorceac

tion, which Robert had unscr upulously brought on the grounds of her aban

donment of him. May’s lawyer successfully argued that there had been no

abandonmentand that Robertsresidence in Texashadnot been bona de

butwasundertakentoqualifytobringadivorceactionthatwouldnothave

beenpermiedunderCanadianlawRobertandhismotherledfordivorce

againin andwhentheywereonc emoreunsuccessf ulledyet againin 

adierenttowninTexasin

ThetriallastedfourdaysDavidFaskenwasreq uiredtogivetesti

monytorefute anallegationmadeby Maythat hehad triedto buyher o

withanoerofHedidnotdenymakingtheoerbutexplainedthat

hedid notwant tos eehi ssonswife dependenton anyoneelseno maer

what the circumsta nces. (Robert had provided no support to his wife for the

last four years.) David also stated that he had no objection to her religion:

“Lots of my friends and business assoc iates are Catholics.” For him the prob

lem lay elsewhere: “Two families ought not to live under the same roof. I am

talking of two wives and husbands. Two young people and two old people

shou ldnotdonot tin the same hous e This time the court g ranted Robert