Did you know?

A - How, when, where, and why our local Memorial Society originated.

 or

B - How, when, where and why a local Co-operative Memorial and Removal Service was initiated.

 or

C - How, and when our present Northwest Funeral Alternative was established.

The answers to the above are in this history thoroughly researched and compiled by Dolores Dickey. Through countless hours of sifting the rough articles, correspondence, documents and government papers, Dolores has give us a clean and concise picture of how the efforts of a small group of dedicated Memorial Society members culminated in the formation of our Northwest Funeral Alternative.

This history also illustrates that nothing is achieved without purpose, perseverance and dedication to a cause. Many thanks to Dolores for her outstanding work in chronicling this history of the Memorial Society of Thunder Bay.

Allan Hauta

Board member,

Memorial Society of Thunder Bay

Caring for the dead in a ceremonial manner dates back to the earliest human cultures. Through time this work became the role of undertakers, morticians and/or funeral directors, who adapted their business operations to meet public needs and expectations. The funeral industry developed increasingly elaborate ceremonial practices. Costs escalated until, in the United States in the 1930’s, the price of a traditional funeral service became a matter of public controversy. People who would normally comparison shop before making a large expenditure often did not think of a funeral as a commercial transaction. After paying the bill they might have second thoughts, but the money had been spent.

In reaction to excessive ceremony and costly services, people banded together to insist on more modest funerals. In 1939 the American memorial society (MS) movement started almost simultaneously in the east where The Community Church of Brooklyn organized a society, and in Seattle, Washington, where forty families of the Church of the People and members of the Unitarian Church established The People's Memorial Association of Seattle.1

Memorial Societies encouraged preplanning in terms of dignity, simplicity and moderate expense; local societies negotiated terms for prearranged burials. The funeral industry saw this as an intrusion on their prerogative of "educating the public in the right paths.”2 Almost forty years later the editor of Canadian Funeral Director, January 1979, echoed those words.

The idea of simplicity in funeral arrangements grew slowly after World War II. The first Canadian Memorial Society formed in Montreal in 1955 followed in the late 50’s by societies in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto and Ottawa. Between 1971 and 1987, an umbrella group, the Memorial Society Association of Canada (MSAC), had enrolled 200,000 paying members.3 The British Columbia society was the largest in North America in 1971.4 Industry opponents of simpler funerals were forced to realize that public demands for change were fuelling the success of the Memorial Society movement. Books and magazine articles kept the dispute before the public.

During the 1960's, confrontation with the funeral industry, especially in the United States, became newsworthy. In 1961 Ruth Mulvey Harmer, a free lance journalist, wrote that steadily rising funeral prices reflected a successful public relations program by the industry that had "redefined the ancient concept of respect for the dead to emphasize extravagant display".5

Jessica Mitford's 1963 book, The American Way of Death, appeared on the best seller lists. Her husband, Robert E Treuhaft, in working with families of union employees, had observed that the cost of a funeral for a union member always matched the amount of the union death benefit — whether it was $1000 or $3000. Their research culminated in the book which detailed the many unnecessary services that bereaved people  purchased at a time when they were very vulnerable. In Ms. Mitford's 1972 obituary, the New York Times hailed her book as a brilliant case against the funeral industry and noted that her work had led to an investigation of the industry by the American Federal Trade Commission.6

As criticism of the funeral industry increased and memorial society membership grew, the opposition to change from the funeral industry and right wing political groups became more evident. The American Intelligence Service, a nongovernmental research business in the field of internal security for private business, printed negative views of memorial societies. Its director had been a former chairman of the Washington State Legislature's Committee on Un-American Activities.7

These attacks on memorial societies, appearing as cold war paranoia was waning, are a reminder that honest, thoughtful and caring people, united in a common cause, could be the targets of those who viewed the political world in black and white. Even without political shading, the funeral industry would not, or could not, acknowledge the philosophy of simplicity and dignity at moderate expense in final arrangements.

The Lakehead Unitarian Fellowship (LUF) attempted to establish a mortuary society in 1963. The first board members organized public meetings to explain the aims of the group at the Waverley Library in September and October of that year. References to this society are sparse but the May 1965 LUF Annual Meeting minutes note the start of the Lakehead Memorial Society.8 The first annual meeting was on 17 January, 1966. Fourteen duplicate membership receipts are dated 11 February, 1966.9

 An undated letter found with this early material must have answered someone's question. The letter stated “there are no regulations regarding the disposition of cremated ashes” J. R. McAlister, Supervisor, Cemetery Administration, Environmental Sanitation Branch.10

The 1971 MS steering committee members, mostly United Church members, had the Unitarian meeting notes and material from the well established Winnipeg and Toronto Memorial Societies. Other papers included a collection of magazine and newspaper items that dealt more with the elaborate aspect of funerals than with price. An undated note from the Information Officer of the Ontario Funeral Service Association Inc. (OFSA), an organization to which all funeral directors belonged, commented on the draft proposal for a new Ontario Funeral Services Act. The Act did not become law until 1976, but the presence of this letter indicates that someone on the steering committee was studying funeral legislation in detail.11

Committee members expected to follow the usual MS pattern of developing a membership that supported the goals of dignity, simplicity and moderate expense in funerals through advance planning on a nonprofit, voluntary basis. They assumed that the newly formed society would negotiate a contract with one or more of the local funeral homes to provide members with a simple burial service.12 Each MS member would then complete a designation form to record the vital statistics needed to register a death, and to record personal wishes for a memorial service. Completing the printed form usually provided a valuable framework for a family discussion about death and funerals. A member could then pre-plan with a cooperating funeral home and leave a copy of the designation form with the funeral director. The family would keep a copy and file the third copy with the memorial society.

The most basic service, “Type A”, arranged for the removal of the deceased from the place of death and the provision of an inexpensive container for the body. There would be no embalming or cosmetic restoration. The funeral home staff would complete the legal paper work and transport the body to the cemetery or crematorium. The “Type B” service offered additional features that could be chosen from a funeral home's itemized price list. Family members could arrange a Memorial Service or omit a service if that was their preference.

The Steering Committee held its first official meeting on 27 September, 1971, at First Church United.13 The goals were to “initiate and form an organization dedicated to obtaining dignity, simplicity and economy in funerals through advance planning on a nonprofit, voluntary basis...and to promote the locating of a crematorium in the Thunder Bay area.”

The committee members set ambitious goals to be met before calling a public meeting to elect a board of directors for the Memorial Society of Thunder Bay (MSTB). The first step was to visit each of the four local funeral homes to discuss a basic contract for members. Although societies in other cities had reached agreements with funeral homes, the Thunder Bay funeral directors declined to cooperate. Undeterred, MSTB board members prepared and mailed an Intent to Membership Form to 135 people. The returned form, with a $2 membership fee, was to serve as a positive indication of interest and support. 

Those who attended the first public meeting on 7 February, 1972, listened attentively to a presentation by Elly Elder, President of the Toronto Memorial Society. Audience members showed support for the plans of the local committee and ended the evening with a spirited discussion about funeral practices.

Encouraged by the enthusiasm shown at this meeting, committee members again made appointments at each of the Thunder Bay funeral homes to try and negotiate a contract. The funeral directors countered by encouraging individuals to make an appointment with the funeral home of their choice to pre-plan their service.

This did not discourage the sixty people who attended the first Thunder Bay Memorial Society meeting, 5 June, 1972. The Rev. Gordon Daly opened the meeting. Batt Lie presented the highlights of the work done to date and outlined future plans. Jack McLean of Wesley United Church presented the proposed slate of officers for the first Board of Directors.

Officers                                                                 Members at Large

President, Batt Lie                                                Rev. Gordon Daly

Executive Secretary Lucy (Catherine) Tett           Sharon Merits

Recording Secretary, Ellen Taylor                        David Smith

Advisory Committee

Dr. J Augustine, Mrs. M Hastings, Dr. N. McLeod, Rev. Ken

Moffatt and Mr. S. Lukinuk. Mr. Eric Gowen accepted the

position of auditor.

The meeting ended with the film "The Great American Funeral", followed by a discussion.14

Plans And Challenges

The 1972 Spring and Summer Newsletter encouraged MSTB members to complete their designation forms and file one copy with MSTB even if they could not file a copy at a funeral home. There were instructions to follow in the event of a member's death, information on cremation (at Sault Ste.  Marie), cemetery fees, Canada Pension Plan death benefits and a list of items from the Code of Ethics of the Ontario funeral industry.15

The first challenge to the newly elected board came in August. The family of Mr. John Woolsey wished to have his body flown to Sault Ste. Marie for cremation. A local funeral home claimed this was not possible — that the body had to be transported by road. Mr. Woolsey's daughter, Ellen Taylor, the newly elected recording secretary of MSTB, chose a different funeral home that carried out the family's request. In a letter to Elly Elder of the Toronto Memorial Society, Lucy Tett wrote: 

"We won — have made our F.D. [funeral directors] admit  (yes, they told the public we were talking nonsense!) that: (1) there is a crematorium in Sault St. Marie, (2) that the body can be brought there without embalming, (3) we sent them the price list for air fare [air freight], and (4) that sealed bags used for drowning and accidents are available! We had it all done last week for one of our members."16

In September 1972, MSTB board members continued their educational program by preparing a variety of newspaper ads such as, "Does the High Cost of Dying Offend You" and "Do You Think This Way About Funerals".17 Some board members agreed to participate in a community TV station discussion with funeral directors but the funeral directors declined. Other board members spoke to small groups that had responded to the publicity. But after analyzing their work during the year they realized that to be more effective they needed to survey community attitudes to death, dying and funerals.

The board invited the Rev. Ed Prinselaar, Field Staff with the Company of Young Canadians (CYC), to the October 1972 meeting to explain the purpose of the CYC and to discuss having a CYC participant do a city survey of attitudes to funeral practices, with special reference to senior citizens. CYC approved the project and hired Terry Dornan to conduct the survey. In Dornan' s summary of recommendations was one that had future implications: "investigate the possibility of forming a co-operative funeral parlour; have a committee representing various segments of the community; and the initial funding would be based upon shares and memberships."18

MSTB had its first encounter with the Ontario funeral industry while registering its by-laws with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Mr. Steve Lukinuk, a local lawyer who had helped prepare the bylaws, received notice of objections from Mr. D. B. Steenson, Registrar of the Board of Administration appointed under The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act. After the MSTB directors revised the sections in question the application was accepted and Letters Patent were issued on 30 July, 1973.

Ontario memorial societies were hearing rumours that funeral regulations would be tightened. Only licensed funeral directors would be able to arrange for the disposition of the deceased. The societies were concerned that this monopoly position would make it increasingly difficult for people to bury their own dead (which was legal if all requirements were met) or choose a simple funeral at moderate expense. The working group of the Ontario Regional Conference of Memorial Societies, aware that the proposed legislative changes had been mainly suggested by the industry, prepared a brief entitled "Proposals for Legislative Reforms Aiding the Consumer of Funeral Industry Products and Services". MSTB board members made sure that this brief reached each of the four local MPPs - Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William), Mr. Pat Reid (Kenora-Rainy River), Mr. J. Foulds (Port Arthur) and Mr. J. Stokes, (Thunder Bay).19

In Thunder Bay, MSTB volunteers supported members who had to arrange a funeral, and listened to complaints about the way members had been treated when selecting a service. They used every opportunity to educate the public about the anti-consumer aspects of funeral practices and prices. At the 21 October, 1974, public meeting, guest speaker Mr. Harold Sitch, Superintendent of Riverside Cemetery, announced that the crematorium at Riverside would soon be open and there would be a chapel for memorial services. The meeting finished with the film "The Great American Funeral", followed by a discussion that suggested the formation of a funeral cooperative and the desire for the choice of plain pine boxes in lieu of elaborate caskets.20

The Rev. G. Daly, in a Letter to the Editor, asked if it was morally justifiable to spend a lot on funerals. "I believe it would be very wrong in our free enterprise system to pass legislation that would stop this [family burial] legislation that would force a family to go through expensive channels that have been set up in a very lucrative business."21 But he also constantly reminded the MSTB board members that their goal was to enlist the understanding and cooperation of funeral directors.22

Steenson, representing the industry, sent this assurance to Rev. Daly "that legislation being proposed would still not prevent a person from transporting their own dead in their own station wagon or truck, it would only require some type of licensing or control over removal services."23

At the Thunder Bay City Council meeting, 28 October, 1974, a delegation from the Thunder Bay Council of Clergy convinced the city's health and social services policy committee that ministers should have some say in the burial of indigents. One clergyman criticized the local funeral directors for cutting comers for indigent funerals, citing an incident where a funeral director provided only a sheet of paper rather than the customary book for mourners to sign their names. He also pointed out that in Manitoba, the Memorial Society handled the burial of indigents for $150 whereas in Thunder Bay the city was paying $375.24

An article in Canadian Funeral Director, an industry trade magazine, dealt with the success of Memorial Societies and listed ways that their industry might combat nontraditional funerals.25 This negativity toward memorial societies may have helped support the local funeral homes in their continuing refusal to discuss any form of written agreement with MSTB.  Even a request letter with pages of signatures received a negative response from the local firms.26 

Despite these rejections, MSTB president Eric Gowen planned to spread the society's aims as widely as possible. In March 1974 his article in the Wesley United Church Quarterly drew attention to the simplicity in burial practices expressed by many denominations. He asked the United Church of Canada to reprint "On Christian Burial", its 1956 pamphlet which had stressed simplicity.

Gowen was also studying the proposed changes to funeral legislation. Rough notes for the December 1975 board agenda include the following: "Co-operative Burial Society...Who will study and get specimen constitutions, and report on a successful one?"27 He felt that a cooperative might provide a basic service without breaking the law. The term 'basic service' would mean direct burial or cremation without the use of a funeral home, with no embalming or cosmetic restoration of the deceased.

Political Action

In June 1976, Gowen was elected Public Relations Officer for MSAC at the first meeting of The International Society of Nonprofit Funeral and Memorial Societies. Ninety delegates representing 700,000 members in Canada and the United States attended this conference in Windsor, Ontario.28 In September, in his MSAC role, Gowen presented a brief stressing the anti-consumer parts of the proposed new funeral legislation to the third Ontario New Democratic Party caucus meeting in Thunder Bay.29 The Ontario Liberal Party received a similar brief in November. At the same time, the Ontario Regional Association of Memorial Societies was advocating increased consumer protection in the proposed new Act. None of these efforts influenced the Ontario Government plans.

As the controversy between the industry and the societies became more vocal two particular issues arose. One revolved around the pamphlet "Consumer Information: Facts about Funerals". This leaflet carried the Ontario Coat of Arms. Memorial societies considered it to be a false and misleading promotion of the funeral industry. Another issue was a dispute about simple, dignified funerals which the industry claimed it provided without memorial society "middlemen".30

New Legislation

The Ontario Government introduced Bill 171, Funeral Services Act 1976, with little advance notice on 26 November, 1976. Approval in principle was on 8 December. An NDP opponent of the bill called section 36(2)(d)

"a vicious amendment to the Act to put the co-op funeral homes out of business...Tell me who put the government up to wiping out the co-op movement, as far as funeral homes are concerned, in the Province of Ontario?"31

When Gowen complained about the lack of time to study Bill 171, Premier Davis assured him that there had been adequate consultation. Davis also stated: "It should be noted that funeral directors are required to provide a simple disposal if requested to do so."32 Such a minimal service was often called a convenience service but the word 'disposal' with its less attractive image, was sometimes used by funeral directors.

The secrecy surrounding Bill 171, the speed with which it was passed and the looming Christmas holidays forced a rush to propose names of suitable consumer representatives for the new Board of Funeral Services (BFS) composed of five licensed funeral directors and three lay members. The Cambrian Presbytery of the United Church submitted Eric Gowen's name as did MSAC, along with two other names.33 He was not appointed. Mrs. Doris Crooks of Thunder Bay, the only consumer representative on the Board at the time, was reappointed. She had met once with Rev. Daly to discuss his concerns for families that wanted to bury their own dead. He reported that "Mrs. Crooks appears to be increasingly cognizant of the responsibility of her representation".34

The quick passage of Bill 171 raised many questions and kept the controversy simmering in the media. MSAC again asked that the Ontario pamphlet "Consumer Information: Facts about Funerals" be withdrawn. The industry countered with criticism of an MSAC brochure presenting church support for simple funeral services.

In Thunder Bay, the MSTB board appointed Mr. Donald Prodanyk to attend the Riverside Cemetery Annual Meeting, February 1977. MSTB was a shareholder because it owned three burial plots for the interment of members' ashes. Prodanyk asked for clarification of the Superintendent's January letter which said that all bodies received at the crematorium after January 10 must be embalmed.35

Mr. Sitch, Riverside Superintendent, explained that he had adopted a business idea presented at a conference in the east. He had consulted with the local undertakers who agreed with the idea which he then presented to the Riverside board.36 Previously bodies for cremation had been held at the hospital for 24 hours and then at the crematorium for another 24 hours without embalming. This change meant that family members would find it next to impossible to carry out a service of their own.37 All bodies would have to be removed by a licensed funeral director and embalmed regardless of the wishes of a family. As time passed, this ruling was not always enforced.38

The May MSTB 1977 Newsletter included two different stories of the attitude of funeral directors to memorial societies. Both comments came from a survey by OFSA. One director fumed that memorial societies were just "walking all over" the industry which was not fighting back. He claimed that the societies were giving false, inadequate and ridiculous answers to the public. He wanted the industry to "stand up and fight these turkeys that are robbing us of our pride, living etc."39

"Funeral Director's Opinion of the Profession", came from an article about a report to the Federal Trade Commission in the United States. This director wrote that he was taught in mortuary school how to "in my opinion, take advantage of the bereaved". He wrote of learning the techniques to persuade clients to spend more on funerals by subtle methods. As the owner/manager of a funeral home he now felt that "I have had experiences which lead me to believe that the profession is based on greed and envy rather than sympathy"40

MSTB board invited Mr. Farand, manager, Co-operative Funeral Home of Sudbury, to be the guest speaker at the Annual Meeting in September 1977.41 Farand also participated in a panel discussion with moderator Jim Farrell (a local CBC broadcaster). Other panellists were Dr. J. Evans, H. Sitch, A. Main, and J. Foulds MPP. Steenson, Chairman of BFS, came from Toronto to join representatives of the four local funeral homes in the audience. In reporting on the meeting in Canadian Funeral Director Steenson "intimated that the MSTB was exploring the possibility of starting a cooperative funeral home in Thunder Bay, the matter would be discussed at a general meeting the following week."42

At the Annual Meeting. Lucy Tett had been elected MSTB president with Mel Redfern as vice president. Gowen was now free to pursue other goals. He studied public health regulations relating to burials, obtained information about various types of cremation containers and read the cemetery and burial regulations. He continued to write confrontational letters to Premier Davis about the regulations relevant to Bill 171.43

Local press coverage kept the issue alive with two feature articles: "Shedding Light on a Dark Subject" and "Clear Alternatives Exist to Expensive Funerals".44 The board also considered, but tabled, a motion from Redfern that MSTB no longer try to obtain a contract with one or more of the local funeral homes. He felt that the time had come to establish a removal service with the object of dispensing with the services offered by the funeral industry in Thunder Bay.45

By early 1978 memorial societies were clearly pressuring a Canadian industry that was reluctant to change. In Vancouver B.C. Jim Darby, director, First Memorial Services Ltd., offered a rent-a-coffin service for those who wanted a low cost funeral with an expensive coffin. He explained that for the sum of $125 the deceased could be placed in a pine coffin which in tum was put in a rented $2,000 oak coffin. Following the funeral service, and after mourners had departed the graveside, the outer coffin could simply be lifted off before burial.46

A funeral director from Chilliwack B.C., writing in Canadian Funeral Director, warned the industry to recognize the changes that the memorial societies were promoting. Ten years previously there had been 22 funeral homes in Vancouver, but now [1978] there were only nine. He blamed the change on the arrogance of the funeral directors. "...funeral directors in Vancouver refused to serve memorial society members...As a group, the funeral directors said 'no'. In this manner they thought they could stop the Memorial Society movement. "47

But, despite this warning many funeral directors preferred to be

defensive rather than cooperate with memorial societies.

At least one Ontario funeral director was unhappy with Bill 171. A Chronicle Journal article illustrated Jim Seeley's frustration with the new regulations which required a funeral director to live in the municipality where his business was located. Seeley, the Dryden funeral director, was given permission by the board to maintain his Red Lake service even though he would not move there; a later ruling cancelled this agreement. Seeley says he wasn't told of this cancellation and accused the board of deliberately keeping him in the dark. 

"I can't get hold of minutes of the meeting which have dealt with this matter. I know that if I go to that meeting in April all they're going to do is chew my ass for going to the newspapers with this story. They don't like it when someone does that."48

Seeley and his lawyer submitted a 2000 name petition from citizens who supported his services, to the Ontario Ministry of Health (ministry responsible for funeral regulations). Finally, in October 1978 a Ministry of Northern Affairs spokesman stated that "cabinet had changed the regulations. The residence requirement no longer applies".49 Two government departments and the cabinet had solved the problem!

In January, 1978, the ten MSTB board members signed a letter to the BFS in support of the Ontario Memorial Society Association's request to withdraw the pamphlet "Consumer Information: Facts about Funerals". The societies criticized the Ministry of Health for publicizing such "industry biased information". Copies of this letter were sent to several Ontario Government ministers, the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) and all Ontario Memorial Societies.50 Gowen, as public relations officer for MSAC, wrote an article, "Memorial Societies Beating the High Cost of Dying" for the February 1978 Canadian Consumer, a national magazine published by the CAC.

In "Who's In The News" Canadian Funeral Director February, 1978, acknowledged the Canadian Consumer article and also commented on a column by Ellen Roseman of the Toronto Globe and Mail.51 Ms Roseman's "The Consumer Game" admonished the industry for embalming without permission and disparaging the concern for price.

"Even when low-priced caskets are displayed, funeral directors can make buyers reluctant to choose them by calling them tin cans suitable only for welfare funerals. By word or implication, they may accuse the family of having little love for the dead if they spend less than they can afford".52

MSTB's educational outreach continued. The Cambrian Presbytery of the United Church conducted a workshop on Christian burial with a program titled "It’s Your Funeral" at Wesley United Church on 15 February, 1978. Gowen was one of the panel members. The workshop ad appeared in the local newspaper obituary column.53 Other February publicity included a Maclean-Hunter TV community discussion program about funeral expenses with host Dr. Ernest Zimmermann of Lakehead University and MSTB board members Tett, Redfern and Gowen. Other Board members presented programs at the Waverley Library.

Steenson, representing the Ontario funeral industry, tried to promote the idea that memorial societies were misleading people when he spoke in Kingston. Two letters to the editor printed in the Kingston Whig Standard firmly rejected his statements.54

This publicity, added to media and memorial society pressures, may have been partly responsible for a meeting between BFS and MS representatives in Toronto on 11 April, 1978. Gowen represented Thunder Bay and was joined by representatives from other societies.55 At this meeting, Steenson warned the societies to be careful to act in an advisory capacity only and in no way to be involved in the direction, signing or provision of supplies for a burial.

MSTB board directors decided to make one more attempt to talk with local funeral directors. In registered letters to each funeral home, the directors asked if the funeral homes would stock and sell to individuals who want them for burial or cremation the following: “fibreboard containers or plain wooden boxes.”56 Gowen sent a personal registered letter to each funeral home, again trying to arrange a contract for MSTB members. One reply offered him, personally, a "Type A" funeral with no charge for the service.57

In a handwritten memo attached to these April letters, Gowen noted a phone conversation with a friend, a local funeral director, in which he mentioned the possibility of applying to register a funeral/burial co-operative.58 This is the earliest written record of plans to establish a co-op, but a 9 May, 1978 letter from the legal department of the Ministry of Health about a proposed funeral cooperative makes it clear that the Ministry regarded the plan as a violation of section 5(1) Funeral Service Act 1976. "No person shall engage in, or hold himself out as engaging in, providing funeral services or funeral supplies or both to the public unless he is licensed as a funeral director under this Act."59 The Health Ministry also sent a copy of its opinion to the Co-operative Services Branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial relations.60

At the May 1978 Confederation College "Festival of the People", MSTB displayed a fibreboard cremation container, a pine box coffin, a funeral pall and several posters about funerals. Visitors to the display could watch a video presentation, "Harry's Big Number" and a documentary "Perspectives on Death". Volunteers answered questions and distributed literature. When this successful public relations initiative ended, Gowen moved ahead with the Co-op idea.

On 6 June 1978, Eugenie Curtis, Eric Gowen, Donald Prodanyk, Melvin Redfern and Lucy Catherine Tett signed the application to register Co-Operative Memorial and Removal Services Inc. Gowen recognized the Health Ministry's position, but continued the attempt to establish a legal co-operative.

Gowen dispatched letters to Ontario Government ministers and to Steenson, secretary of BFS. He asked that funeral legislation be transferred to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations from the Ministry of Health and he wanted a memorial society member to represent consumers on BFS. However, Steenson dismissed this idea since he regarded the society members a special interest group.

Jim Foulds, MPP for Port Arthur, was preparing a private member's bill for the Ontario Legislature. He wanted consumer interests properly represented in the funeral business. The chance of having any private member's bill passed into law was remote, but such bills provided a focus for debate.61

MPP Foulds was one of the guest speakers when the Ontario Memorial Societies met for their annual meeting in late September 1978 at Bolton.62 He presented the main points of his Bill which was designed to pressure the government to take some progressive steps for consumer protection. Another speaker, Mr. Gaylord Watkins,63 Chairman of the Board of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Ottawa, encouraged MSAC to send a letter to the Centre outlining memorial society problems and requesting assistance. Watkins considered the Thunder Bay situation a priority; he requested copies of all letters to the Ontario government. He noted that the Funeral Services Act, 1976, did not clearly define what was meant by funeral service. At the time, no one realized the importance of that statement!

The debate about funerals persisted in the media. The CBC Marketplace broadcast of 12 November, 1978, generated 2500 requests for information about funerals. Gowen and Ms. Elder of the Toronto Memorial Society prepared a short informative summary for the CBC to distribute in answer to these queries. Locally, CBQ, the Thunder Bay CBC radio station, presented a program in which Eric Gowen and Jim Sargent of Sargent's funeral home talked with host Don Edwards.64

Controversy Continues

The January 1979 Canadian Funeral Director editorialized on "Life with the MS". It also carried a lengthy report on a panel discussion with MSAC executives and printed "Getting the Answers About the MS". The Globe and Mail printed "Woman's Attempts to Prearrange Funeral Led to Frustration, Complaints to the Board" and another article titled "The Cost Of Dying".

In March the Globe and Mail reported "Florists Losing Business". The idea of flowers for the living and donations to support charities in the name of the deceased was just becoming popular with the public but florists mounted a major campaign against the idea. The Thunder Bay Times News carried an article about donating your body to a medical school. The local papers also carried stories from other press sources and printed local letters to the editor.65

Maclean's profiled an unusual story about Ken Timlick, a controversial mortician from Trail BC, who had been given the job of moving 1,158 graves to another site five miles away. None of the burials was older than a few generations and many graves had been there for only twenty years. Finding no sign of expensive caskets and only one corroded steel vault, Timlick decided that at his funeral home he would use a catafalque, a reusable shell put over a corrugated cremation container or plain coffin. "The B.C. Funeral Services Association, representing 65 of the province's 80 funeral parlours, is livid"66

In Thunder Bay the Co-op applicants were impatient. They had not received any information about their application for registration but the fee had not been returned. Gowen consulted Watkins who had studied the Thunder Bay papers after the Bolton conference. Watkins expressed the hope that action on Gowen's concerns would soon happen.67

At the Ontario Legislature, MPP Foulds presented his Private Member's Bill, "An Act to amend The Funeral Services Act, 1976". He called his Bill "a modest attempt to reform the Funeral Services Act in order to provide consumer protection in this neglected field." The Bill would:

 1. Move responsibility for the Act from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

 2. Increase the number of consumer representatives on the Board of Funeral Services, including a representative from the Ontario Region of the Memorial Society of Canada.

 3. Make it mandatory for funeral directors to provide an itemized price list of supplies and services to the purchaser.

 4. Embalming can only be provided if it is specifically requested by the purchaser, or if the body needs to be transported out of the province.

 5. Finally, funeral directors no longer have the exclusive right to provide removal services and funeral supplies.68

According to one headline the legislature "torpedoed" the Bill. A funeral trade magazine, saw this as an attempt "to introduce into Ontario, the same sort of harsh restrictions which the Federal Trade Commission has been trying to foist on American Funeral Service."69

On 9 May, 1979, the Ministry of Health Legal Branch released a thirteen page opinion stating that the proposed cooperative would be breaking the prohibition contained in 5(1) of the Funeral Services Act, 1976.70 But a letter from Consumer and Corporate Relations announced that the Co-op Certificate of Incorporation would be issued within the next few days. This same letter also noted the legal opinion from the Ministry of Health.71

The Certificate of Incorporation is dated 28 May, 1979, almost a year after the application had been submitted. Was the certificate a mixed blessing? Would the Co-op's operation be breaking the law? All Co-op supporters were volunteers who knew what they wanted to do, but had no experience or professional support. They proceeded carefully to establish the business organization.

Not all Ontario memorial societies supported the idea of a co-op that might be prosecuted for breaking the law since a guilty verdict, and the publicity surrounding it, might damage the cooperation that other societies had achieved with the funeral industry. Nick Schultz, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre had proposed a different approach. He wanted the Co-op to plan its first basic service with a family that would agree to allow the event to become a legal test case. The decision of a court would determine if Section 5(1) [Funeral Services Act 1976] had been contravened.72

The Co-op directors decided that such a trial would probably involve lengthy delaying tactics by the industry. They proceeded on the assumption that if prosecuted, Co-op members could be distinguished from the public because in joining the Co-op they had to first be members of MSTB. A member would also sign a form stating a rejection of the embalming and cosmetic restoration of dead bodies. The service would be called a 'basic service'; the word funeral would not be used. The simple container could not be called a funeral supply in a city where no funeral home stocked it.73

On 12 September, 1979, the core group of Co-op volunteers held its first official meeting. The board members were Mel Redfern, President (to 17 October, 79), Eugenie Curtis (to 14 November, 79), Patton Brown (to 31 December, 79) Louise Chmarny (to 31 December, 79) Eric Gowen and Donald Prodanyk. They established an office at 405 S. James St. Where a volunteer was to answer the phone from 9 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday. 74

Federation of Ontario Memorial Societies

Delegates to the September 1979 Ontario Regional Conference of Memorial Societies, acting on the suggestion of conference speaker Nick Schultz, of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, formed the Federation of Ontario Memorial Societies (FOOMS) to provide official representation at a provincial level. Its goal was to change funeral legislation, generally along the lines of Fould's Private Member's Bill. Schultz also suggested ways to help eliminate the cremation waiting period of 48 hours and offered to continue consultation with memorial societies.

In November 1979, Confederation College organized a workshop "Dealing with Death Successfully". Invited speakers were Dr. Mary Brown, registered clinical psychologist from Ottawa and Jim Sargent, local funeral director. The session ended with a panel discussion featuring speakers representing medicine, nursing, chaplaincy, geriatric care and the college. Despite the fact that Gowen was in the audience, obviously taking notes, no one mentioned the Memorial Society. Gowen used his detailed notes to write an article that appeared in "The People's Forum" column of the Chronicle Journal.75

The Co-op directors knew that their plans were a provocation to the industry, especially if they could eventually establish a funeral co-operative like the one in Sudbury where a licensed funeral director provided a minimal service when that was the choice of his client. Gowen and Redfern discussed the legal ramifications of the services that would be provided by the Co-op volunteers with Mr. Lukinuk, the lawyer who had helped with the incorporation of MSTB in 1973 . Lukinuk thought that it would be a foolish attorney-general who would approve the prosecution of a "little bunch of do-gooders up in Thunder Bay given the present political environment". He urged them to keep on doing what the community expected. If the Co-op was prosecuted, the defence was to be that it would not be serving the public, but only those who were members of both MSTB and the Co-Op. Volunteers would provide a removal, not a funeral, to the cemetery or the crematorium, using containers that no funeral home used.76

MSTB board members met with the Co-op directors and signed a formal resolution to provide members with a basic removal service at time of death. In November 1979, MSTB sent a detailed newsletter to members even though it was close to Christmas, a time when people might be too busy to read it. Membership in the Co-op would cost $25. How many of the over 1000 MSTB members might join was unknown.

The newsletter reported that Foulds' Private Member's Bill was a focus of comment in the July/August Canadian Funeral Director. Not only did the editor disparage the Bill but added "Mr. Foulds represents an area that is a hotbed of discontent when it comes to funeral service". The MSTB newsletter editor remarked "Hotbeds result in strong, healthy growth you know.”77

1980, A year of courage and apprehension.

1980 opened with MSTB continuing its educational activity with "Funerals, Cremation and the Consumer - A Panel Discussion" featuring J. Sargent, of Sargent & Son Ltd. Funeral Home, H. Sitch, Riverside Cemetery & Crematorium, E. Gowen, MSTB and the Rev. E. Ivany of St. Paul's United Church. Moderator Peggy Marshall, Adult Services Librarian was pleased that 64 people attended on an extremely cold night in January.78

At the Co-op office a volunteer answered the phone for some hours each day or an answering machine referred callers to a volunteer. With business procedures now in hand, Gowen promoted the idea of the basic service to funeral home operators in small towns near Thunder Bay as well as to the city. Thunder Bay's mayor, Dusty Miller, referred him to an officer of the Social Services Department who wanted information that he could distribute to his field officers. Clients who favoured simplicity, when a death occurred, could become aware of service and reduce City costs in those cases. However, there was no possibility that the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay would become a member of the Co-op.79

By early Spring the Co-op's membership had reached 134.80 Board members were looking forward to their first Annual Meeting to be followed by the MSTB Annual Meeting, on 9 April, 1980.

The MSAC annual meeting on the weekend of 8 June, 1980, at the Avila Centre, brought together delegates who represented 85,000 MS members from across Canada. A Nova Scotia delegate announced the good news that funeral legislation in that province had moved from the Health Ministry to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. The Chronicle Journal article "Going Out Gracefully" reported the highlights of the sessions.81 Later that month, in a letter to the editor, Gowen thanked the newspaper staff for the publicity and added that members of the new Co-operative Memorial & Removal Service Inc. could arrange a basic alternative service for $175.82

Following the National Convention, MSTB Board members worked on the FOOMS request that all Ontario Societies should contact their MPPs to change the regulations about cremation. FOOMS deemed the 48 hour waiting period unnecessary and thought that cremation could take place once the coroner's certificate was available. Co-op volunteers provided basic services for members when required. All seemed in order for a quiet summer. It was the calm before the storm!

On 30 June, 1980, the daughter of a Co-op/MSTB member phoned Gowen. Her father had been found dead beside his bed. Gowen went to the residence, met with family members, one of the executors and the coroner, who told him to pick up the medical and coroner's certificates the next day. Gowen left to arrange for the storage of the body for the 48 hour waiting period before cremation. During his absence, someone at the house called a funeral director to come for the body and await instructions.

The family members resolved their differences and asked Gowen to inform the funeral home that the deceased did not want to be embalmed and that the family agreed. The funeral director replied that either he would embalm the body or the family could come and pick it up. At this point the family asked the Co-op to take charge and arrange for minimal service [embalming only] by the funeral home. The following day, Gowen and one volunteer, with the reluctant help of a funeral home employee, removed the body from the funeral home. Another employee, on instruction from the funeral director, took pictures of the removal as evidence for BFS.

In a letter of complaint to the Hon. Dennis Timbrell, Minister of Health, Gowen explained in detail what had happened. He emphasized that he was not targeting an individual [funeral director] but rather the Funeral Services Act for the events that had taken place.83

Mickey Hennessy, the well known Fort William MPP had politely acknowledged, but quietly filed, previous MSTB correspondence. This time, breaking party ranks, he wrote to the Hon. Dennis Timbrell: "I offer my support to the Society and would appreciate if their concerns should be looked into."84

In July, 1980, a local funeral director's article in the newspaper, "Funeral director refutes Memorial Society Claims", summarized an industry position that a traditional funeral service with the body present gave a family greater comfort than a memorial service. One criticism of the Co-op was that "volunteers are amateurs, however well-meaning. They are not always fully informed, nor can they always be depended upon to do what they've promised to do."85

In mid-September, MSTB Board member, the Rev. Karl Sauer, answered this article in a Letter to the Editor, “Plan an Inexpensive Funeral”. Rev. Sauer summarized the provisions of the basic service offered by the Co-op and stressed the value of a meaningful memorial service.86

Later in September, the Co-op and Gowen each received a summons, initiated by the Ontario Board of Funeral Services, to appear in court on 30 September. The charge:

"between Jan. 9, 1 980 and July 2, 1980 at Thunder Bay, Ontario, not being licensed as a funeral director under the Funeral Services Act, did engage in providing funeral services and funeral supplies to the public contrary to Funeral Services Act, 1976."

The summons contained the names of four deceased persons.87 Both Gowen and the Co-op entered a plea of not guilty.

The Co-op board called a special meeting to plan the defence at the trial, now scheduled for January 1981. Volunteers continued to provide basic services when called upon. The board accepted new memberships and planned to distribute the 500 pamphlets about the Co-op that it had confidently ordered. Gowen continued his barrage of letters to Government officials. At the November 1980 regular board meeting, the directors set up a defence fund to handle legal costs and planned a newsletter "aimed at telling the members about the prosecution and the Co-op's urgent need of financial support in order to wage a respectful fight on behalf of the membership."88

Mr. Lukinuk's legal firm could not represent the Co-op in a court that could hear appeals pertaining to a Provincial offence. He advised the directors to obtain senior legal counsel from Toronto because this charge was breaking new ground and an appeal was likely.89 Acting on Lukinuk' s suggestion, the Co-op engaged Arthur Maloney Q.C. of Toronto.90 Schultz of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre promised that the research facilities of the Centre, and his knowledge of the situation would be fully available to counsel.

On 2 January 1981, an MSTB news release appeared in the city papers (including Canadan Uutiset), the local radio and TV stations, and regional newspapers to explain the background of the court case. The message ended "We have no funeral directors who are willing to cooperate with the Memorial Society. We stand alone in Canada in trying to provide for a need not filled by any other group."P The local MPPs received personal letters with similar information.

Board members of MSTB and the Co-op collaborated on a second more detailed news release that specified the parts of the Funeral Services Act that they wanted to see changed. A newsletter to Co-op members outlined the charges to be heard at the 16 January trial and announced that, acting on Maloney's advice, they had engaged Mr. Gilbert Labine of Thunder Bay as legal counsel. Maloney was prepared to maintain an interest in the matter and to be called upon when needed.92

Members of MSTB and the Co-op responded generously to the request for financial help for the defence, but the fund total was still small.93 The Co-op directors hoped that, given the unusual nature of the case, senior counsel would act for a nominal fee. The Memorial Society of Toronto had been willing to contribute to the costs if there had been a test case as had been recommended, but was not prepared to support the Co-op for the upcoming trial.

The case opened on 16 January, 1981, before His Honour, Provincial Court Judge R.B. Mitchell. Crown Counsel was B. Swadron (Toronto) and Defence Counsel, G. Labine. Gowen and the Co-op were being tried together for breaking the Funeral Services Act, 1976, with Gowen speaking for himself but also answering for the Co-op.

The court heard only a small amount of evidence that day. The funeral director witness agreed that written permission was required to embalm a body, but he also remarked "we never get it."94 In reference to the 30 June 1980 removal from a residence, he claimed not to know who had called the funeral home to remove the body. Later one of his employees testified that the coroner had given the order. This same employee had been instructed to take pictures when the Co-op volunteers removed the body from the funeral home. Court then closed for the day and the trial resumed five months later.

Each local candidate running in the March 1981 Provincial election received a letter from MSTB asking for support for changes in funeral legislation. Two candidates did not reply, but the other six supported MSTB's position. Mickey Hennessy replied "As you may well remember that the last time a vote was taken I was the only member to support your request. At the present time I see no change in my previous stand."95

The Ontario election was over before the trial resumed. MSTB and the Co-op held their Annual Meetings on 23 April, 1981. The Co-op now had a total membership of 198. Those attending the meetings supported the Co-op defence efforts and enjoyed the film, Pierre Berton's "The Great Debate – Do Funeral Directors Have Too Much Power".

Trial Resumed

Gowen and the Co-op were back in court on 19 May 1981.96 The crown called five witnesses in an attempt to prove that the Co-op volunteers were providing services normally done by a licensed funeral director. The funeral director described in lengthy detail the training required to be licensed. In cross examination, Labine establishing that no funeral home carried any type of cremation container like the one used by the Co-op.

The next three witnesses described the paper work required to release a deceased body from the hospital, to register the death at city hall and to arrange for cremation. In all cases there was no requirement for a funeral director to complete the forms. All witnesses agreed that Gowen, as a representative of the Coop, always had the paper work completed and at no time did he refer to himself as a funeral director. The words 'funeral director' had been crossed out on the forms he presented.

The final crown witness, a funeral home employee, answered questions about the difference between a funeral and a memorial service. He indicated that embalming the deceased was customary prior to a funeral service. When questioned about a disposal service he referred to it as a convenience service, a name change made about two years previously by the management of the funeral home where he was employed. The witness confirmed that the cremation container used by the Coop, was not available at his place of employment.

Gowen, the last witness for the day, described Memorial Society members as people who preferred simple, rather than ornate caskets, and moderate costs rather than great expense in funeral services. He emphasized this view by remarking that "our Lord went to his tomb in a clean linen shroud, and many people are quite willing today to face the fact that it doesn't take tremendous expenditure to do honour to a life that was lived. "97

This statement was consistent with Gowen's support for the 1956 United Church statement on Christian burial.

Gowen alluded to problems that some families encountered at funeral homes and added that the Cooperative sought to meet that need of people seeking simplicity without getting a put-down in a licensed funeral home.98 But Judge Mitchell had only one concern, he wanted to know if the Co-op was licensed.99

On the second day of the trial, Gowen described the removal of the body of the Co-op member from the funeral home (June 1980) and agreed that he and his volunteer helper needed the assistance of the funeral home staff to complete the removal. Swadron's cross examination established the fact that the Co-op was not licensed under the Funeral Services Act, 1976.

All the testimony to this point was about the 30 June, 1980 death. There was no question that two other deceased named in the summons had been Co-op members but membership for the fourth named deceased was open to question. In this case, the widow of an MSTB member signed the Co-op membership a few hours after her husband's unexpected death in an accident. Was the deceased a Co-op member or did the Co-op provide a service for a member of the public? This question was important since the Co-op was depending on double membership to avoid serving the public.

The argument could not be presented that day; the case was put over to September. The Chronicle Journal reported the trial on 20 and 21 May, 1981. Canadian Funeral Director described the case in detail, and Maclean's 1 June, 1981 edition printed Dust to Dust Without Frills:

 “...as Gowen puts it. 'I'm a freedom fighter, and all we're doing is defending the right of simplicity. We're not trying to push on people who have the abiding belief that looking on a corpse in a funeral parlour is good for their grief...we're trying to stand for the right of people who want to spend their money while they're living, not on funeral trappings when they're dead.” 

At the third and final court hearing, 9 September, 1981, the argument was brief. Labine presented three points: (1) Did the Co-op and Gowen provide a funeral service? (2) Did they provide a funeral supply? (3) Did they serve the public?

Crown Counsel Swadron insisted that: (1) Co-op members were the public. (2) Gowen had done the things normally done by funeral directors. (3) The Co-op's cremation container was not a special supply.

Judge Mitchell pronounced the Co-op and Gowen guilty. Following the brief recess before sentencing Labine asked Judge Mitchell to provide a written judgment, necessary for an appeal that would have to be launched within 30 days. Both lawyers agreed to help speed up the process for a written judgment.

The crown fined Gowen personally $1000 and the Co-op $3000, with 6 months to pay. The Co-op was to "cease and desist" until an appeal is filed (Labine), or forever (Swadron). At this point, a MSTB member who been sitting next to a funeral director at the trial related that when the guilty verdict was announced he turned to her, shook his finger at her, and said "See, you have to follow the regulations."100

Maclean's printed "Back To The Only Game In Town", an article by Rosalie Woloski in the 21 September, 1981 issue. She wrote that...

"To add weight to his argument that funeral directors needlessly embellish burials with embalming, cosmetics and expensive caskets, he reminded the judge that 'Jesus Christ went to his tomb in a clean linen shroud.' The argument made an impression on the judge- but not in the way the past president of the Thunder Bay Memorial Society had intended. In passing sentence last week, Judge Mitchell cited Gowen for his contemptuous attitude. He also called him 'petty and nasty'. Gowen remains unrepentant. Now he wants to appeal the decision, if only to get an opinion on the Funeral Services Act, which he still claims doesn't serve the public's best interest."

Chronicle Journal articles announced the unanimous decision of the Co-op board to appeal the convictions.101 At the October 1981 membership meeting, board members listed the expected costs of the appeal and pointed out that small donations from each member could meet all the needs. Members were again asked to write to their MPPs to request the repeal of the Funeral Services Act.102 Labine was to approach the most amenable funeral home in Thunder Bay to provide a basic service for members while the Co-op was under the court order.

The Co-op's conviction may have pleased the industry, but the Chronicle Journal printed letters of support for the Co-op. The London Free Press editorialized about the verdict in a 19 October issue, while at the national level, Brian McGarry, OFSA President, wrote a letter to the editor of Maclean's about Rosalie Woloski's article.103

Both the funeral industry and the government were feeling the pressure for change. The Ministry of Health had asked for comments about the possible repeal of the Funeral Services Act. FOOMS responded with a brief to the Ministry in October 1981 but did not release the details to the press as a courtesy to the government that had requested it. The brief referred back to the comprehensive Neilson Watkins Report which had been submitted to the Minister of Health on 10 October, 1973.104 FOOMS asked all its member societies to approach their local MPPs about the repeal of the Act and MSTB sent 6 pages of signatures on a petition to change funeral regulations.

The Ontario Government also asked for briefs from Humber College and from the Ontario Board of Funeral Administration. Canadian Funeral Director printed "Ontario Seeks Opinions On Deregulation", and called it a surprise move. In answer to the magazine article "Why now?" the executive assistant to the Minister of Health said that funeral service might come under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He continued,

"We are asking funeral service to give their rationale for keeping the Act under Health. We have trouble understanding why, when we suggest a change to Consumer Affairs, those representing funeral service are horrified."105 The Health Ministry had also requested information from the Memorial Funeral Services Cooperative of London which had been cited in the FOOMS brief as being the subject of harassment.106

While waiting for Judge Mitchell to release his Reasons for Judgment the Co-op Board planned for the future. Donations to the defence fund came from across Canada and from cities in the United States. There were small donations ($10 to $25 range) from individuals, significant ones from other memorial societies and a variety of donations from many who identified themselves as church members. The fund totalled $4,030 in early December.107

Reasons for Judgment. 17 December. 1981

Judge Mitchell found neither the Co-op nor Gowen licensed under the Funeral Services Act. He then dealt with whether either or both defendants had provided (1) funeral services or (2) funeral supplies (3) to the public. For the first point, he cited the Yellow Pages ad for MSTB rather than the Co-op ad. He wrote that performing one act of providing funeral services or supplies on one occasion established the fact that the Co-op had served the public.

The written document repeated much of the testimony previously given at the trial. Several pages related to the meaning of a funeral supply and the word 'usual' in relation to the 'usual' practices of a funeral director. Finally, Judge Mitchell dismissed the idea that membership in the Co-op, even double membership with MSTB, removed members from being 'the public'. He also noted that the case has attracted a great deal of notoriety and media response. He stated that his judgment "...is in no way to be interpreted as a criticism of the morality of either of the defendants."108

Planning for the future, January 1982

MSTB's December 1981 newsletter encouraged members to write to the Ministry of Health and local MPPs in support of the repeal of the funeral legislation and to donate to the Co-op defence fund. Ever hopeful of winning the appeal, the Co-op explored ways to establish itself on a more business like footing and the board members planned for an Annual Meeting in April. At least one Thunder Bay funeral director must have thought that the MSTB was going to quietly disappear.

Gowen met with Doug Shaw [Atwood, Shaw and Labine] in February 1982 to plan for the appeal. It would be necessary to show that there had been errors in the original court proceedings. The testimony about embalming had been contradictory and the trial transcript put the witnesses in the wrong order.

MSTB board member, the Rev. Karl Sauer, noted another inaccuracy. His letter to Judge Mitchell (copied to Shaw and Swadron) included photocopies of the yellow page ads of MSTB and the Co-op. He clarified the differences between them and pointed out that Judge Mitchell had frequently referred to MSTB when he meant the Co-op. Rev. Sauer stated that the judge had implied that the 1200 MSTB members were the accused when it was the Co-op membership that was under consideration. He made it clear that the two organizations had different officers, bylaws and memberships, and that the Memorial Society advocated funeral planning and publicized its work, but never provided funeral services or supplies to the public.109

The judge had been correct in noting that the trial had attracted media response! The Toronto Star printed an article "Memorial Society Charged In Funerals", a headline that added to the confusion between the Co-op and MSTB. The article ended with the information that the Funeral Services Act review should be finished by midsummer.110

Judge Patrick Fitzgerald presided at the appeal. He clarified the confusion about the terms Co-op and Memorial Society and then dealt with the meaning of the words 'funeral' and 'usually' as used in describing the work of a funeral director. He reviewed the question of embalming and the dispute about caskets and the Co-op' s cremation container. He reserved judgment but thought that he would exonerate Gowen.111

On 16 April 1982, Fitzgerald released his "Reasons for Judgment" which focused on the accepted meaning of the word funeral, and the work of a funeral director. In comparing the work of the Co-op with that 'usually done' by a funeral director he stated that not only was the Co-op's service not 'usually provided' by the funeral director, it was not provided at all. In conclusion, the Judge cited three dictionary definitions of the word funeral:

"By these definitions, one English, one Canadian and one American, published in Canada, the simple collection, packaging and conveyance of a dead human body to a crematorium, without accompanying rites, or ceremonies would not constitute a funeral whether or not a memorial service is later held."112

The caption printed under Gowen' s picture in the local newspaper said, "Eric Gowen...A Happy Man Today".113 However the possibility that the case would go to the Ontario Court of Appeal tempered the celebration.

The newsletter announcing the Annual Meetings of MSTB and the Co-op had gone to members before the appeal decision, but, by the date of the meeting 22 April, 1982, the Co-op was back in business. After the election of officers and a brief presentation by a guest speaker, Shaw answered questions about the Appeal. He estimated that if the Board of Funeral Services received leave to appeal, the cost to the Co-op for a Toronto trial would be between $4,000 and $5,000.

Gowen spoke about the future of the Co-op and the added costs of establishing a business. Volunteers had made the Co-op successful, but they were not always available when needed. As to the continuing goal to have the Funeral Services Act repealed, Chairman Prodanyk stated that individual letters written to the ministry, requesting a reply, were much more effective than signatures on a petition.114

The Ontario Board of Funeral Services was granted leave to appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that Judge Fitzgerald had erred in law in his definition of 'funeral services' and 'funeral supplies' and had improperly found the defendants [Gowen and the Co-op] not guilty of contravening the Funeral Services Act 1976.115 Leave to appeal was granted because, Mr. Justice McKinnon, Ontario Attorney General, felt that a test case of this importance in the province needed to be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal, rather than being left at the District Court Level.116

The May 1982 issue of Canadian Funeral Director editorialized that if the industry appeal failed, "funeral service in Ontario will be a whole new ball game." The editor reiterated the industry position that such 'store front' disposal services would be novel at first but eventually detrimental to the public interest. Another article in the May issue was titled "Gowen Acquitted in Thunder Bay Appeal". Brian McGarry, Chairman, OFSA Legislative Committee wrote a third item, "Funeral Service Faces Serious Time in Ontario". He was concerned that funeral legislation might be discarded entirely and offered several suggestions for the improvement of the Act rather than its abandonment but still insisted that it should remain in the Ministry of Health. He said that Ontario funeral directors were fortunate that they had been consulted by the provincial government and asked for recommendations on possible changes to their Act.

Ellen Roseman's column ''The Consumer Game" in the Globe and Mail, 31 May, 1982, carried the headline "Co-op Providing No-frills Funerals Fears Bankruptcy". She quoted Gowen as saying the cost of the next trial might be $5000. and that it was a pretty obvious attempt to wipe out the Co-op.

Continental Conference. Toronto. June 1982

The Toronto newspapers soon had more to report about funerals. The joint conference of MSAC and the Continental Association of Funeral and Memorial Societies (USA) was held in Toronto, 9 to 12 June, 1982. The Rev. John Mather, MSTB board member introduced Gowen. Rev. Mather reported back to the MSTB board that there was a full house and that he was proud to be from that 'hotbed of Memorial Society Activity'. Gowen received many generous donations for the defence fund and promises that the case would be put to memorial society boards all over the continent.117

McGarry, vice president of the Funeral Service Association of Canada, and past executive member of several Ontario committees, was the conference guest speaker on 11 June. He acknowledged that the industry needed to examine its practices and conceded that some few individuals on both sides of the issue would be reluctant to see any changes. He thanked FOOMS for its cooperation with OFSA which commissioned an independent study "Public Attitudes to Death and Funerals" in 1979. He stated that the study certainly was worth the time and effort (and perhaps even the money!) It was the first survey of its kind in North America.

McGarry presented many reasons for keeping funeral legislation within the Ministry of Health. He agreed that permission for embalming was necessary, that the industry was prepared to develop an easily understood funeral account itemization formula, that the advertising of funeral prices could be possible "within parameters" and that funeral directors should make available merchandise without accompanying services if such is the desire of the purchaser. Ellen Roseman's Globe and Mail article, reported these announcements under the title. "It's Service First, Money Second, Funeral Firms Say".118

Preparing for the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In the Ontario legislature, MPP Foulds discussed the upcoming trial with Mr. Grossman, Minister of Health. Foulds stated that the appeal by the industry was an act of harassment on the part of BFS and registrar Steenson, and an act of personal vindictiveness against Gowen and the Co-op when they were providing a service that no funeral director in Thunder Bay would provide.119

In a letter to MPP Hennessy, Gowen expressed his concern about the cost of the Appeal Court hearings. Since the matter was not yet before the courts, Gowen wanted Hennessy's support in asking the Attorney General to withdraw his approval for the appeal. Gowen thought it unnecessary to have such an expensive procedure when the Health Ministry was promising a review and possible repeal of the Funeral Services Act, 1976.120 Hennessy supported Gowen's request to Attorney General McKinnon.121

The Attorney General responded that it was important that the boards and tribunals which operated within the Ministry of the Attorney General should be independent. Any intercession would 'fetter' this independence. He also acted on the advice of Swadron, solicitor for the Board of Funeral Service, that it was important to issues involving the regulation of funerals that the matter be appealed by the industry.122 

Organizations and individuals mobilized again to build a defence fund. Newsletters of many cooperatives reported the controversy and provided the address for donations. Memorial Associations from Seattle, Chicago and Washington donated as did Canadian provincial societies. The letters that accompanied the donations, especially the ones written in 1983, show the value that people attached to this issue, and their understanding of its importance.123 In a press release when the trials were finished the Co-op stated that the fund had received more than $8,000.

An article in the October 1982 Canadian Funeral Director, "Northern Ontario F.D.s [funeral directors] Concerned Over Appeal" by the secretary-treasurer of the Northwestern Ontario Funeral Service Association indicated concern about the approaching trial. The funeral directors worried that if the Court of Appeal decision did not support the industry, it would open the way for anyone to go into funeral service. The situation would become like British Columbia where the MS had established business operations. The author commented that the memorial society movement was not large in Ontario, but the issue in Thunder Bay had 'stirred up' the situation. The final paragraph revealed the concern for the protected position that the industry had enjoyed up to this time. What might happen if the court took its own interpretation of that law and, instead of ruling specifically on existing law, might rule for the people rather than for the profession?

In another article, a writer said that funeral directors become paranoid every time the government has an inquiry that could lead to changes in the Act. "Our own rumour mill is one of the single greatest factors working against funeral service. It causes over reaction beyond belief." Further in the same article, he commented that this over reaction bewildered Health Minster Grossman, who could not understand how the issue got to the intensity that it did, long after it was of no further interest to the Ministry. "It was us -the funeral directors- that kept it alive. We were responsible for making it an issue."

Another item commented on the legal costs which have been "unusually high...Thunder Bay case $24,000" and notes that the Board registration fees will increase from $25 to $35 for a funeral director's license and from $1.50 to $2.50 per registered death.124

Waiting for the Court of Appeal

The careless interchanging of the words Memorial Society and Co-op in the court case had the potential to harm the MS movement. The new Minister of Health, in a statement to the legislature included the words "...memorial society versus the funeral directors which as the member knows is before the courts."125 Mr. Eric Inch, President of FOOMS wrote to the Minister, "there are certainly no disagreements between them [memorial societies] before any Ontario court, nor, as far as I am aware, in any court in Canada at this time."126 Minister Grossman's statements seemed to indicate that he believed Thunder Bay's Co-op was the MSTB. Three hundred of the 1,750 MSTB members had joined the Co-op; equally significant, 1400 members had filed a variety of other arrangements.127

The appeal date in March 1983 was changed because of Swadron's sudden illness. The March issue of Canadian Funeral Director quotes McGarry as saying, in "OFSA Starts Homework on Self-Regulation", that deregulation was recently under serious consideration by the Ontario Ministry of Health, and would have become a fact except for three factors, an OFSA brief, a 1979 study of public attitudes towards funeral service, and a meeting between a senior health official and OFSA committee members.

While the dispute continued in Ontario, the American Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent Congress changes that would, among other things, prohibit misleading advertising, require full disclosure of costs and would allow price information to be given over the phone. The National Funeral Directors Association was leading the fight to veto the legislation.

Publicity for the 5 May, 1983 Annual Meetings of MSTB and the Co-op received an unexpected boost from an April Chronicle Journal column by Howard Reid. MSTB had sent its newsletter to local media, but was surprised when Reid printed the information on prices of a basic service at the four local funeral homes.128

At the meeting, the Co-op acknowledged that it was "on hold" while awaiting the date for the appeal and Board members stressed the importance of members helping members and hoped that more volunteers would come forward to be trained. MSTB reported on the success of their January 1983 information night at which more than sixty people saw the film "Facts of life, Preparation for Death". In March the community TV channel showed the film and followed it with a discussion of the topic between MSTB Board members, the Rev. Karl Sauer and Dolores Dickey.

In the brief Court of Appeal hearing on 7 October, 1983, the judges dismissed the appeal, with costs assigned to BFS which had initiated the proceedings. Funeral service in the Province of Ontario would never be the same again! The industry expressed concern that the outcome of this case could usher in storefront disposal services, but also admitted in Canadian Funeral  Director that it had some responsibility for stirring up the issue with its unwillingness to consider change in the services it offered.

The Co-op had a news release ready "Ontario Funeral Directors' Monopoly Breached." MSTB and FOOMS started immediately to prepare letters in support of changes to the funeral legislation. MSTB organized a public information evening, 13 October, 1983, and showed the film "All You Ever Wanted To Know About What To Do At The Time Of A Death, But Were Afraid To Ask".

Gerry Lougheed, chairman BFS, phoned Gowen to say that BFS would take no further court action. He offered to come to Thunder Bay and try to arrange an MSTB agreement with at least one of the funeral homes.129 Before the publicity about the verdict died down the media broadcast the news widely, even on a Sunday morning CBC National program. Requests for information came in from across the country.130

The Co-op was now free to find suitable premises for the business and hire staff. It was no longer a volunteer society but a community enterprise. The Co-op was able to develop a business relationship with one funeral home that was willing to rent space in its cool room when necessary. Lougheed of BFS came to Thunder Bay but was unable to arrange a contract for the majority of MSTB members who did not join the Co-op.

MSTB continued its educational outreach and assisted members when asked. Storefront burial services did not appear but transfer services developed in several cities. There was minimal disruption to the industry.

When the Government proclaimed the Funeral Services Act, 1990, Transfer Services became part of the industry and were subject to regulation. Humber College developed a training course for transfer service operators and BFS grandfathered the Co-op from these regulations until the staff had completed the Humber College course.

The 1990 Co-op board faced a major decision - continue in business or decide that the new legislation provided adequate consumer protection and disband. By a narrow majority the board members decided that competition was necessary or Thunder Bay might revert back to former anti-consumer business practices. In 1997, the Co-op Board, acting on legal advice, registered as Northwest Funeral Alternative Inc. (NWFA) under the Ontario Corporations Act.

Between the date of the final trial in 1983 and the present, [2009] there have been enough incidents to show that consumer protection requires constant vigilance. During the 1990s BFS looked to the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) for support rather than to FOOMS. [Appendix #1]

In the years since 1983 MSTB members have continued to support the local funeral planning activity with donations at the time of the Annual Meeting. The philosophy of simplicity, dignity and moderate expense, not cost alone, is still the significant reason for that support just as it was during the court cases of the early 1980s. There are still some individuals within the industry that view a basic service as a sign of poverty but twenty-five years have passed since the last court case and only a few people remember the details. A Co-op member whose husband had served on the MSTB board related her experience in the 1990s when the family decided to purchase a niche at the cemetery for his ashes. The cemetery clerk said that a niche was expensive. Fortunately this Co-op member had been a loyal supporter from the beginning and could only smile at the lack of understanding.

In Thunder Bay, Northwest Funeral Alternative and the Memorial Society continue to hold back-to-back Annual meetings to elect new board members. FOOMS is represented on two Ontario Government committees, the Ministerial Advisory Committee and the Bereavement Services Advisory Committee. This is especially important because funeral customs are changing rapidly with Ontario demographic shifts, the introduction of new technology, and consumer concern over the environmental impact of past funeral practices. FOOMS continues to represent consumer opinion to the Ministry of Government Services and advocates for more consumer choices in the supply and provision of death care goods and services.

The conflict between a very small part of the Ontario funeral industry and a group of determined Thunder Bay citizens had escalated gradually. Co-op supporters thought they were building a case on the strength of common sense; their opponents in the funeral industry viewed the confrontation as more nuisance than threat. The court cases changed the funeral industry in Ontario forever. Yet none of this would have happened if the Memorial Society of Thunder Bay had been able to follow the usual pattern of MS activity. There would have been no Co-op, no court cases and probably very little change in funeral legislation.

The five MSTB members who applied for registration as a cooperative, and the volunteers who worked to support their aims could never have foreseen how their idea would develop. The fact that the final judgment depended on the meaning of that one word - 'funeral' - surprised everybody. No one could have predicted that their volunteer business would operate under the Funeral Services Act as a transfer service and become part of the industry, nor could they have realized how their actions would impact funeral service throughout Ontario and other provinces. That it happened is a tribute to the courage and tenacity of Eric Gowen in particular, and to those who shared his determination to spread the memorial society message of simplicity, dignity and moderate expense.

His memory lives on in the educational work that is still being done by MSTB and in the business success of the Northwest Funeral Alternative and similar transfer services throughout the Province of Ontario.

All documentation is in the MSTB files for 1993 and 1999 The July/August 1992 Canadian Consumer contained two articles by Tim Lougheed, an Ottawa based free lance writer. The first one, "Funeral Services" highlighted the changes and new choices in the funeral industry of Ontario. The second article "The No-Frills Option" was a story of The Simple Alternative, a Toronto transfer service. There was no mention of the Thunder Bay court cases of 1981, 82 and 83 that had made transfer services possible.

The tone of the article indicated that the funeral industry was responsible for these consumer initiatives, however the February 1993 edition of Canadian Consumer included a letter to the editor entitled "Regarding Funerals" with the following sentences that put the changes in perspective. "With reference to the July/August article on funerals, memory is short. Thunder Bay was the nucleus from which all the changes in Ontario funeral laws have happened."The letter concluded with a brief summary of the 1980s court cases.

In February 1999, FOOMS sent letters to the Ontario societies to inform them that the funeral industry was trying to introduce "combination cemetery/funeral home types like Arbor to amend/diddle the Act or regulations to allow for funeral homes to be located on cemetery property near crematoria."Although FOOMS members had served as consumer representatives on BFS for many years, the funeral industry chose the Consumers Association of Canada [CAC] to represent the consumer interest at this time.

CAC executive members had little knowledge of the funeral industry when they assisted BFS with a survey form distributed as a Joint Survey by the Consumers Council of Canada [CCC] and CAC (Ontario). The front page of the survey included the statement

"Both the CCC and the CAC (Ontario) are involved in talks with the government and industry about possible legislative changes in Ontario. We need your input so that we can speak with more authority about consumer views."

The February 1999 survey form had no questions about transfer services but there were questions about the price of funerals and the services of funeral homes. Some questions suggested that "combinations" would be more consumer friendly and more economical. FOOMS members were aware of the attempts at "combinations" in the USA – integrating funeral homes, cemeteries, monument firms, and florists into a single unit. Any FOOMS member on BFS would have been asking very pertinent questions about "combinations" and their relationship to consumer protection. The CAC representatives did not have as much data about funeral practices.

The MSTB board members and volunteers who had worked with the CAC during the 1950s and 60s, prepared letters with information to help the consumer representatives. Gowen contributed his knowledge of the business practices in the United States where 'combinations' were in use.

On March 5 1999, Joan Huzar, President of the Consumers' Council of Canada responded to MSTB. Her letter indicated that CCC had not been aware of the complexities of the funeral industry and had no idea what consumer opinion about funerals really was. The results of the joint OBFS/CAC consumer survey indicated that consumers lacked information about the industry and that there was great distrust of the funeral industry because it could take advantage of people at a vulnerable time. Finally the survey showed a belief by consumers that an effort to combine cemeteries and funeral homes [which is really what this was all about] would reduce competition and push up prices, in short not be good for consumers.

On March 10 Helen Anderson, Past President, CAC (Ontario Branch) wrote about the survey and the proposed legislative changes.

"...a large part of the two day meeting was the question of visitation services being established on cemetery property. This was conducted under the heading of "combinations". Frankly, when we made our questionnaire, we did not even know that there were visitation services. By "combinations" we had in mind the three huge multi-services entities."

When the second day of the meetings had ended, CAC Ontario representatives realized that there had been no intention of addressing the question of combinations. In answer to the question of when this topic would be discussed, the chairman replied that once CAC had received the report of the meetings it could write comments on anything.

CAC Ontario members who participated in these meetings realized that they had little information about the death care industry but they quickly learned about funeral homes and other services. Mrs. Anderson's letter indicated regret at not having the Memorial Society in mind when the study was designed, but that when they wrote a response to the report they were going to correct that omission.

MSTB responded to Mrs. Anderson's letter with information about the importance of the definition of the word 'funeral' in the court cases. MSTB suggested that 'visitation services' and 'combination' needed to be clearly defined.

Mrs. Anderson's reply on 24 March, 1999 indicated that she had checked the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act and had found that neither word was listed. She intended to look very carefully at the new legislation.

There is nothing further about this topic in the records.

END NOTES Memorial Society of Thunder Bay (MSTB) Minutes and papers (1964 to 2003) are located at the Thunder Bay Historical Museum. References to Cooperative Memorial & Removal Services (Co-op) can be found at the Northwest Funeral Alternative (NWFA), the new name for the Co-op

1 MSTB misc. file to 1972, The Progressive, Madison Wisconsin 1961, "The High Cost of Dying"; Mat urity, June - July 1974, "Funerals that make sense".

2 Ibid., Maturity.

3 MSTB misc. file to 1972, Inventory of Memorial Society of Canada fonds, in Inventory #F0355, York University Archives and Special Collections.

4 Ibid., Dr. Philip Hewitt, "The Memorial Society of B.C. a glance at its early history".

5 MSTB misc. file to 1972, The Progressive, Madison Wisconsin 1961, “The High Cost of Dying”

6 Ibid., New York Times, Obituary of Jessica Mitford.

7 Ibid., American Intelligence Service, copy write 1966, from the internet. The first pamphlet, "Co-Ops and the Funeral Industry - a case study of Socialist war on a segment of private industry", documented the rise of cooperative funeral establishments from 1926 to 1936 and predicted that memorial societies would be "setting up crematoria which can be used to destroy criminal evidence of various kinds". Another pamphlet, "Memorial Societies ... the sinister aspects of certain funeral associations advocating fast disposal", stated that the societies represented a carefully coordinated attack on funeral directors, funeral homes, casket makers, monument companies, florists and cemeteries.

8 Minute books 1963-64-65 Lakehead Unitarian Fellowship. Mortuary Society board members were Mr. G. Love, Mr. G. Reynolds, Mr. R. Stennett and Mrs. E. Taylor.

9 Membership receipts for [14] members.

10 MSTB misc. file to 1972, letter re cremated remains.

11 Ibid., Ontario Funeral Service Association letter.

12 In 1971 the funeral homes in Thunder Bay were: Blake Funeral Chapel, Everest of Thunder Bay, Jenkens Funeral Home and Sargent & Son, Ltd.

13 MSTB file 1971. Steering Committee members: Mrs. AMette Augustine, Dr. John Augustine, George Breckenridge, Mrs. Nan Ernewein, Mrs. Pam Hunt, Mrs. Batt Lie, Rev. Keith Lingwall, Rev. Ken Moffatt and Mrs. Lucy Tett. In January 1972 Rev Gordon Daly, Ove Hansen, Mary Hastings and Dr. Neil McLeod joined the committee, followed in March and April by Sharon Merits and Eric Gowen.

14 MSTB file 1972, Report of First Annual Meeting, attached to April minutes.

15 Ibid., 1972 MSTB Summer newsletter. 

16 MSTB binder Vol. 1, Lucy Tett to Elly Elder, 9 September, 1972.

17 MSTB file 1972, Local newspaper ads October and November, 1972.

18 MSTB file 1973, Action Research Survey Results.

19 MSTB file “Briefs to the Ontario Legislature and political parties”

20 MSTB 1974 file, Press release, 25 October, 1974.

21 MSTB binder Vol. 1, the Rev. G. Daly to MSTB, 4 March, 1975.

22 MSTB file 1975, Eric Gowen, letter to the editor, 15 November 1975.

23 MSTB minute file, 1975, Lakehead Living Vol. 3 #5, 1 October, 1975. The Johnsen family of Thunder Bay planned such a family service. In December 1974 Mr. Johnsen built two coffins, one for his wife and one for himself. When he died in January 1975 his family buried him. Lakehead Living printed an investigative report of this family burial by Don Worrall of their staff.

24 MSTB 1974 file. News item in the local newspaper, 29 October, 1974.

25 MSTB 1975 minute file, 28 March, 1975.

26 MSTB Vol. 1, Request letter and pages of signatures, September, 1976. 

27 MSTB minutes December, 1975.

28 MSTB 1976 file. “Town Talk" Thunder Bay newspaper report of the Windsor meeting.

29 MSTB file “Briefs to the Ontario Legislature and political parties".

30 MSTB 1976 file. Two articles in the morning Times-News and the evening News-Chronicle. “Common questions asked about funerals” and “Sides in the Funeral Industry likely to Fight to Grave".

31 MSTB binder Vol. 1 Legislature of Ontario Debates, 7 December, 1976, pages 5467-8.

32 NWFA archives, Vol. 1. Letter from Premier William Davis, 9 February, 1976.

33 Ibid, MSAC letter to Premier William Davis, 5 January, 1977.

34 MSTB 1974 minute file, February, 1974.

35 NWFA archives Vol. 1. Riverside Shareholder's meeting, 6 February, 1977.

36 Ibid.

37 See end note 24

38 Ibid., Letter and obituary, 7 May, 1977.

39 NWFA archives Vol. 1. One of 262 comments on any topic relating to funeral services by personnel in a recent questionnaire survey by OFSA as published in Canadian Funeral Director March ,1977.

40 Ibid.,

41 MSTB Annual Minutes binder, 22 September, 1977. Farand, Manager of the Cooperative Funeral Home in Sudbury, Ontario, said it was not a cut rate funeral home or a discount outlet. It does not encourage expensive funerals nor discourage economy. It originated in 1952 when a retiring funeral director sold his establishment. French Canadian families each subscribed $25 and twelve men put up $10,000 of their money as membership loans to facilitate the purchase. The Co-operative has flourished and paid dividends ever since. Steenson was in the audience; when asked to speak he remarked to the effect that "the earlier the better because Mr. Farand might feel intimidated by his presence". The inference apparently being that Mr. Farand depends on him for renewal of his embalmer's license. However, as the panel speakers had been invited, Steenson did not come to the platform until afterwards.

42 Ibid., Canadian Funeral Director, October, 1977.

43 Ibid., E. Gowen to government officials, 18 October, 1977.

44 MSTB file, 1977. Times News, 25 November, 1977.

45 MSTB minute file, 2 December, 1977.

46 MSTB file 1978, Undertaker Offers Rent-a-coffin. Chronicle Journal, 6

January, 1978.

47 Ibid., A Look at Funeral Trends, Canadian Funeral Director.

48 Ibid., Seeley Questioning funeral board talks, Chronicle Journal, 22 February, 1978.

49 Ibid., The October 1978 news item, on same page as the February article.

50 NWFA archives Vol. 2, Letter to Minister of Health. 25 January, 1978.

51 Canadian Funeral Director Page 21, February, 1978.

52 MSTB file 1978. "The funeral director versus the bereaved; it's just no contest:, the CONSUMER GAME, Ellen Roseman, Globe & Mail.

53 Ibid., Times News February 14, 1978.

54 NWFA Vol. 2. Kingston Whig Standard 2 March, 1978. From a letter titled "The Reality of Death” Donald Steenson, registrar of the Funeral Services Board of Ontario, is quoted as saying: 'Not having the body there only goes to heighten the anguish of death. It denies people what they need the most. The Clark Institute in Toronto is spending thousands of dollars with its Widow to Widow program, trying to help people who have been misled by the Memorial Society. They didn't have the body present and they need a lot of help to recover.' That statement has as much validity as the saying that all redheads have hot tempers." The second letter was titled, “More Than Cost”.  There was a serious misrepresentation of facts involved in the quotation attributed to Mr. Donald Steenson.  The Clark Institute of Psychiatry did not mount a Widow to Widow program to try and help people who have been misled by the Memorial Society. In fact, what the Clark Institute did was to undertake a small experimental program in conjunction with a major research project examining the many stresses of bereavement experienced by a random population of recently widowed Toronto women.

55 Ibid., Memorial Society Association of Canada newsletter, March 1978. Those attending the OFSA meeting, Callie Bell and Joanne Marshall (Toronto), Elly Elder and Dave Jackson (Toronto), Don McCuaig (London) and Norman Rice (Kingston).

56 Ibid., Letters 11 April, 1978.

57 Ibid., Letter 17, April, 1978.

58 Ibid, Handwritten note 28, April, 1978.

59 Ibid., Letter from legal department, Ministry of Health 29 July, 1978.

60 Ibid, Letter from Ministry of Health, 9 May, 1978.

61 Ibid., Jim Foulds to Eric Gowen, 6 July, 1978.

62 Ibid., Ontario Societies' regional meeting 29 September, 1978.

63 MSTB file of briefs. Mr. Watkins, an Ottawa lawyer employed by the law reform Commission of Canada, was a member of the team that prepared the Neilson Watkins Report (Proposals for Legislative Reform Aiding the consumer of Funeral Industry Products and Services) in 1973. Professor A. W. Neilson was a law professor at York University. MSAC, headquartered in British Columbia at that time, commissioned the study in conjunction with its United States counterpart the Continental Association of Funeral and Memorial Societies with the •purpose of preparing a Model Act for funeral service in our country"

64 NWFA archives Vol. 2. Gowen notes during interview, 23 November, 1978.

65 MSTB file 1979, News items from January to March 1979.

66 Ibid., Maclean's 12 March, 1979; Chronicle Journal 16 March, 1979.

67 NWFA archives Vol. 3. Letter from Gowen to Watkins, 12 April,1979.

68 Ibid., New Democratic Party press release, 17 April, 1979.

69 MSTB file 1979 Casket and Sunnyside, July/August 1979.

70 NWFA archives Vol. 3. Opinion on proposed incorporation 9 May, 1979. "the proposed co-operative would not be relieved from the prohibition obtained in 5(1) of the Funeral Services Act merely because it restricted its offering of funeral services and supplies to its membership."

71 Ibid., Letter from Consumer & Corporate Relations, 17 May, 1979.

72 Ibid., Co-op per Gowen to Steven Lukinuk 14 November, 1979.

73 Ibid., Gowen to J.D. Campbell, Winnipeg, 10 September 1979.

74 Co-op minute book, first board meeting, 12 September, 1979.

75 MSTB file, 1979. Letter to the editor, 24 November, 1979.

76 NWFA archives Vol. 3. Gowen to N.J. Schultz, 30 November 1979.

77 Ibid., MSTB newsletter, December 1979.

78 Ibid., Letter, rough notes and newspaper ads 11 to 25 January, 1980.

79 Co-op minute book, 14 May, 1980

80 Ibid., Annual meeting minutes, 9 April, 1980.

81 NWFA archives Vol. 3. Press releases, newspaper stories, 3 June 1980.

82 Ibid., Chronicle Journal, Gowen, letter to editor, 27 June, 1980.

83 Ibid., Letter to Hon. Dennis Timbrell , Minister of Health, 8 July, 1980

84 Ibid., Mickey Hennessy MPP to Hon. Dennis Timbrell , Minister of Health from 14 July, 1980

85 Ibid., A. G. Gardiner, 28 July, 1980.

86 Ibid., Letter to editor, Rev. Karl Sauer, 22 September, 1980.

87 Ibid., Initial summons and notice of adjournment September, 1980.

88 Co-Op minute book, 5 November, 1980.

89 NWFA archives, Vol. 3. Gowen and Co-op from Lukinuk and Halabisky, 3 October, 1980.

90 Ibid., Arthur Maloney to Co-op, 7 January,.1981.

91 MSTB file 1981, news release 2 January, 1981.

92 NWFA archives Vol. 4, Maloney to Gowen, 7 January, 1981.

93 Ibid., MSTB/Co-op member newsletter, January 1981.

94 Trial transcript, pg. 26, May, 1981.

95 Hennessy reply to MSTB is handwritten on back of newsletter.

96 Trial transcript pgs. 19, 20 May, 1981.

97 Ibid., pg. 105.

98 Ibid., pg. 114.

99 Ibid., pg. 115.

100 Conversation between Dolores Dickey and Annette Augustine, October, 2007.

101 Chronicle Journal, 10 and 16 September, 1981.

102 NWFA archive Vol. 5. Co-op newsletter, 21 September, 1981.

103 Ibid., Collection of letters and articles, September/October, 1981.

104 Ibid., FOOMS letter and brief 26 October, 1981.

105 Canadian Funeral Director, October 1981.

106 NWFA Archive Vol. 5. Letter to Mrs. V.M. (and several other MSTB members) from Ministry of Health, 12 November, 1981; Petition to repeal the Funeral Services Act, October 1981; Ministry of Health to London Cooperative, 19 November, 1981; Letter bundle to Ministry of Health from London Co-op, 8 December, 1981.

107 NWFA archive Vol. 6. Letters and forms with donations, 1981 to 1983.

108 Trial Transcript pages 4-5, 6-7, and 35.

109 Ibid., To Judge Mitchell, Shaw and Swadron, 9 March, 1982.

110 Ibid., Toronto Star, •Memorial Society charged in funerals, 19 March, 1982.

111 Ibid, Gowen's handwritten notes about the hearing.

112 Ibid, Trial transcript, Reasons for judgment, 16 April, 1982.

113 Ibid., Thunder Bay newspaper reports, 17 April, 1982

114 Co-op minute book, annual meeting minutes, 22 April, 1982.

115 NWFA archive Vol. 5. Leave to appeal.

116 Ibid., Gowen from D. Shaw, 29 May, 1982.

117 MSTB file, 1982. Report of MSAC/CAFMS conference, June 1982

118 NWFA archive Vol. 5. Brian McGarry to MSAC/CAFMS conference, June 1982.

119 NWFA archive Vol. 6. Lakehead Living •Foulds Charges Board with Harassment" 29 July, 1982.

120 Ibid., Hennessy from Gowen, 6 July, 1982.

121 Ibid., Attorney General Hon. Roy McMurtry from Hennessy, 21 July, 1982.

122 Ibid., Dickey from Attorney General Hon. Roy McMurtry. 21 September, 1982.

123 Ibid., Letters/donation forms re defence contributions 1980 - 83

124 Ibid., Canadian Funeral Director, October 1982.

125 Hansard, pg. 5391, 23 November, 1982.

126 NWFA archive Vol. 6. Hon. L Grossman, Minister of Health from Eric Inch, President of FOOMS, 6 December, 1982.

127 Ibid., Hon. L Grossman, Minister of Health from Dickey, 27 December, 1982.

128 MSTB file, 1983, Newsletter announcing annual meeting, 5 May, 1983. 

129 NWFA archive Vol. 6. Gowen's handwritten notes, 15 October, 1983.

130 Ibid., Letter to Gowen, November and December, 1983.