By Robert Kuhn

TRY though they might, B.C. churches keep ending up before the courts. Earlier this year, the B.C. Supreme Court (BCSC) weighed in on yet another church dispute.  

The case, entitled ‘Viitre v. St. Peter’s Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church,’ provides three lessons for all churches.      

Viitre had attended St. Peter’s since 1965, and formerly sat on the church council. He brought his church to court over some of his concerns regarding the church’s leadership.  Among other things, Viitre asked for the church to send out a notice for its Annual General Meeting (AGM) again.  

He also requested that an independent third party be appointed to confirm the membership list, and that such a list be provided to him. This mattered because the people who attended and voted at the AGM would decide who would govern the church.  

The church was required by its constitution, and the B.C. Society Act, to give notice to all voting members at least 14 days in advance. The church tried multiple methods, including posting a notice on the bulletin board and the church website, publishing a notice in a local magazine and making an announcement during a church service.  

The church admitted the notice was not sufficient.  The court stated: “Notice by publication in a church or society bulletin is inadequate. Failure to provide proper notice of a meeting and election is a defect or irregularity in the conduct of the affairs of a society.”

Lesson 1  

Ensure that proper notice is given, in accordance with the church constitution and the B.C. Society Act. Do it right the first time, to avoid doing it again.  

Viitre felt the membership lists might be inaccurate. He wanted to have an independent person compile the list, and wanted the right to inspect it.  

The church defended the accuracy of its membership list and refused to provide it, saying that to do so would violate its obligations under the Personal Information and Privacy Act (PIPA).  

Continue article >>

The legal decision on this issue was split.  The court found that the list was accurate and that the church was capable of compiling it without outside assistance. It did, however, require the church to give Viitre a copy. What is important to note is why.  

The court specifically found that “the Society Act does not require a British Columbia society to file its register of members with the Registrar of Companies, or make its register of members available for inspection or copying by members.”

So if the law did not require it, who did? Unfortunately, the church’s own Constitution and Bylaws provided that any voting member was entitled to inspect the books and records of the congregation.

The court did recognize this case involved disclosure of private information; but it decided that it could order the release of this information if the court thought it appropriate. In this case, the court chose to limit the information – but did disclose the names, membership class and eligibility to vote.

Lesson 2

Know what your Constitution and Bylaws say. Follow them.  

If they require you to disclose private information, make sure your members are aware that their information may be used this way before they sign up – so that you do not violate PIPA.

Ultimately, the BCSC found that both parties had succeeded – and thus, both had to cover their own court costs.  

There are no winners when churches end up before the courts. Aside from the financial toll, consider the impact this dispute has had on the church community as a whole.  

The final lesson came from the judge, who commented: “More open communication on the part of both parties might have avoided some of the controversy which culminated in this petition.”

Lesson 3

Be open and honest with one another. If a dispute is brewing, attempt to find constructive ways to communicate before things end up in court.

Robert Kuhn is an Abbotsford lawyer.

September 2010