N.L. woman wants her burial plot back
Government told to reconsider moving man mistakenly buried in adjacent grave
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — Florence Chaffey wants to do up her husband's gravesite, but four years after his death, she's still waiting for a resolution to a dispute over the person buried in the adjacent plot, a fight that the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court addressed this week.
But while Justice Glen Noel quashed a decision by the provincial Department of Justice not to issue the George's Brook woman an exhumation licence to move the person buried in the plot she claims she owns for herself, the final say is with the provincial government, which he ordered to reconsider the matter.
“The news is a little better … but I would like it to be all over with,” Chaffey said Monday. “It could have gone either way. … This has been going on almost three years. … It's frustrating.”
A spokesperson for Justice Minister Andrew Parsons said the decision by the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court is under review.
Chaffey's action was against the province, as well as the family of the man buried in the plot next to her husband, Maurice, whom she was married to for almost 43 years at the time of his death.
Chaffey hopes Parson's decision won't be drawn out.
“When I will pass on — hopefully not for awhile — I don't like to leave this burden with my family,” said Chaffey, who is on oxygen and has lung problems, but is not giving up the battle to regain her burial plot.
“I just wants to move on. It's tormenting me . .... I have spent thousands and thousands of dollars now trying to fight this.”
Chaffey said if she gives in and has her husband moved to another double plot, who's to say it won't happen again, that someone gets buried next to him instead of leaving the gravesite open for her as well?
REJECTS CLAIM
“The family of the man whose remains were resting in the disputed plot rejected Chaffey's claim of entitlement to the plot and to any removal of the remains of their family member,” the summary of Noel's decision stated.
“The minister refused to issue the licence, taking the position that the consent of the next of kin of the deceased whose removal was sought was a necessary precondition. The court held the minister's decision was unreasonable and remitted the matter for reconsideration with the benefit of the court's ruling. The minister had improperly fettered his discretion by establishing the consent of the next of kin as a necessary condition to the issuance of a licence.
“While the presence or absence of consent may be an appropriate factor for consideration, given the wide discretion afforded by the (Exhumation) Act, a lack of consent could not be used as an automatic ground for refusal. The minister's reasons also failed to address the factual context of whether there is a compelling reason to exhume.”
The other family was not named in the original SaltWire Network story and has not been named here.
Noting the unusualness of the case, the court made no order as to costs, as the disputed plot issue remains to be determined.
DISPUTED BURIAL
It was in 2017 when Chaffey heard a rumour that a man had been buried in the cemetery plot she is supposed to eventually share with Maurice in the George's Brook Milton All Denominational Cemetery.
A meeting with the cemetery committee confirmed the rumour.
Chaffey said she and Maurice bought Plot 186 — a double plot — in 2015. Her husband died and was buried in October 2016.
In June 2017, she had a headstone installed in time for Father's Day.
It was then she noticed that the grave seemed off — it looked recently disturbed. A few days later, during the burial of a man in Plot 188, somebody noticed the gravel and suddenly realized what had happened — the owner of Plot 187, who had been buried in December 2016, just months after Maurice, had been buried in plot 186.
After Chaffey brought the matter up three years ago, the graveyard committee drafted a letter to Blundon's Funeral Home, which was said to have buried the man in the wrong plot.
In 2018, a committee member told SaltWire Network that letter went unanswered.
The other family, through Blundon's, purchased Plot 187, a double plot, in December 2016.
While the record put before the minister, as confirmed by the cemetery committee, indicates their deceased loved one “was mistakenly placed in Plot 186,” the other family doesn't accept that premise.
FACTS OVERLOOKED
Noel said the minister's original decision to not grant the exhumation licence doesn't address the “critical factual dispute” that lies at the heart of the request — whether the minister is satisfied there is a deceased person in the wrong plot.
Previously, Fewer's Funeral Home in Clarenville, which buried Maurice Chaffey, offered, for free, to move the body that was buried in the disputed plot, the original story reported.
However, the Chaffey family alleged the other family would not agree to the removal and reburial of the body, unless the Chaffey family agreed to a list of demands, including a new casket, the cost of which would fall to the Chaffey family.
Chaffey said she couldn't agree to that.
“It cost me over $12,000 for my husband's funeral. … Why should I have to pay for someone else's when it wasn't my fault?” Chaffey said in 2018.
It was then the Chaffey family decided on legal action.
Amanda Buis, the lawyer for the other family, said Monday there is no comment from her clients at this time.