How a Memorial Society Changed Ontario’S Funeral Industry Eleanor Dolores Dickey
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Document generated on 09/28/2021 6:31 p.m. Ontario History The Cooperative Memorial & Removal Services vs. The Ontario Board of Funeral Services How A Memorial Society Changed Ontario’s Funeral Industry Eleanor Dolores Dickey Volume 111, Number 2, Fall 2019 Article abstract In a test case that the attorney general of Ontario considered of province-wide URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1065083ar importance, a small group of citizens in Thunder Bay, who had formed a burial DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1065083ar cooperative, took on the province’s funeral industry in the courts in the early 1980s. The resulting judgement fundamentally changed how the industry See table of contents operated in the province of Ontario. Publisher(s) The Ontario Historical Society ISSN 0030-2953 (print) 2371-4654 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Dickey, E. D. (2019). The Cooperative Memorial & Removal Services vs. The Ontario Board of Funeral Services: How A Memorial Society Changed Ontario’s Funeral Industry. Ontario History, 111(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.7202/1065083ar Copyright © The Ontario Historical Society, 2019 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ 195 The Cooperative Memorial & Removal Services vs. The Ontario Board of Funeral Services How A Memorial Society Changed Ontario’s Funeral Industry* by Eleanor Dolores Dickey ords are important. As build- judgment led to signicant changes in ing blocks of our stories and the Ontario funeral industry. songs they narrate events and Caring for the dead, in a ceremonial playW on our emotions, and, carefully de- manner, dates back to the earliest human ned, can have surprising repercussions. cultures. rough time, this work be- is was never truer than in the early came the role of undertakers, morticians 1980s in under Bay, Ontario, during and/or funeral directors, who adapted a confrontation between a small group their business practices to meet public of local citizens, who had formed a bur- needs and expectations. No one ques- ial cooperative, and the Ontario funeral tioned the fact that when death occurs industry. is story, like all good stories, someone must care for the body, almost involved a problem to be solved, action immediately, but in the United States, and reaction that advanced the plot, and in the 1930s, the cost of funeral services a resolution. As the players in the drama became a matter of debate. Funeral pric- consolidated their positions, the events es were presented as the cost of a casket led to a local court case, an appeal of the only; other services that were necessary decision, and a nal judgment from the might not be discussed. People who Ontario Court of Appeal. To everyone’s would normally comparison shop before surprise, the outcome of the case rested making a large expenditure, oen avoid- on the meaning of a single word, and that ed thinking about a funeral as a commer- * e Memorial Society of under Bay (MSTB) Minutes and Papers (1964-2003) are located at the under Bay Historical Museum. References to Cooperative Memorial & Removal Services (Co-op) can be found at the Northwest Funeral Alternative (NFA), the new name for the Co-op. A version of this arti- cle appeared in the pages of the under Bay Historical Museum Society Papers & Records (2008). Ontario History / Volume CXI, No. 2 / Autumn 2019 OH inside pages autumn 2019.indd 195 2019-08-29 11:12:22 PM 196 ONTARIO HISTORY e American Me- morial Society high- Abstract lighted the desire for In a test case that the attorney general of Ontario consid- simplicity in funeral ar- ered of province-wide importance, a small group of citizens rangements and the idea in under Bay, who had formed a burial cooperative, took spread quickly aer the on the province’s funeral industry in the courts in the early 1980s. e resulting judgement fundamentally changed Second World War. e how the industry operated in the province of Ontario. rst Canadian Memorial Society formed in Mon- Résumé: Au début des années 1980, un cas de jurispru- dence considéré d’importance provinciale par le procureur treal in 1955. Winnipeg, général de l’Ontario opposait un petit groupe de citoyens Edmonton, Toronto, de under Bay ayant formé une coopérative funéraire à and Ottawa organized in l’industrie des salons funéraires. La décision de la cour a the late 1950s. Between radicalement changé la manière dont fonctionne ce secteur 1971 and 1987, an um- dans la province. brella group, the Memo- rial Society Association of Canada (MSAC), had cial transaction. Aer the service, they enrolled 200,000 paying members.4 e might have second thoughts about the British Columbia society was the larg- cost, but the money had been spent. est in North America in 1971.5 Industry e Memorial Society (MS) move- opponents of simplied funeral arrange- ment, established in the United States ments were forced to realize that public in 1939,1 reacted to funeral prices and demands for change were fueling the suc- excessive ceremony by stressing preplan- cess of the Memorial Society movement. ning in terms of dignity, simplicity and Books and magazine articles kept the dis- moderate expense. Local memorial so- pute before the public. cieties negotiated terms for prearranged Organizing a Memorial burials. e funeral industry saw this as an intrusion on their prerogative of Society “educating the public in the right paths”.2 he memorial society committee that Almost forty years later, in 1979, the edi- Torganized in under Bay in 1971, tor of Canadian Funeral Director echoed inherited reference books and papers those words.3 from the Lakehead Unitarian Fellow- 1 MSTB misc. le 1972., e Progressive, Madison Wisconsin 1961, “e high cost of dying”; Matu- rity, June – July 1974 , “Funerals that make sense”. 2 Ibid, Maturity. 3 MSTB misc. le 1979, Canadian Funeral Director, January 1979, “Life with MS”. 4 MSTB misc. le 1972, Inventory of Memorial Society of Canada fonds, in Inventory #FO355, York University Archives and Special Colections. 5 Ibid., Dr. Philip Hewitt, “e Memorial Society of B.C.: a glance at its early history”. OH inside pages autumn 2019.indd 196 2019-08-29 11:12:22 PM a memorial society vs the funeral industry 197 ship’s 1963 attempt to establish a mor- needed to register a death, and a place to tuary society.6 e steering committee write personal wishes for a memorial ser- members7 expected to follow the usual vice. Completing the printed form would Society pattern of developing a member- provide a valuable framework for a fam- ship that supported the goals of dignity, ily discussion about death and funerals. simplicity, and moderate expense in fu- A member could then visit a cooperating nerals through advance planning on a funeral home, discuss arrangements in nonprot, voluntary basis. ey assumed advance of need, and leave a copy of the that the newly formed society would ne- form. e family kept a copy and led the gotiate a contract with one or more of third copy with the Memorial Society. the local funeral homes to provide mem- e steering committee organized its bers with a simple burial service. rst public meeting on 7 February 1972, e ‘Type A’ basic service would ar- to announce its action plan and gauge range for the removal of the deceased community interest in a Memorial So- from the place of death, and would ciety. ose in attendance showed sup- provide an inexpensive container for port for the plans, listened attentively to the body. ere was to be no embalm- a presentation by an executive member of ing or cosmetic restoration. e funeral the Toronto Memorial Society and end- home sta would complete the legal ed the evening with a spirited discussion paper work and transport the body to a about funeral practices.8 cemetery, or crematorium. e ‘Type B’ Encouraged by the enthusiasm basic service would include additional shown at this meeting, committee mem- elements, selected from a funeral home’s bers scheduled appointments to discuss itemized price list. Family members were a contract at each of the four under to be free to arrange a memorial service Bay funeral homes.9 It quickly became at a time and place of their choosing, or apparent that under Bay was dierent omit a service, if that was their prefer- from other cities. No local funeral direc- ence. tor would negotiate; each encouraged Each Memorial Society member people, who wished to pre plan, to make would receive a designation form that an appointment with the funeral home had space to record the vital statistics of their choice. Undeterred, the commit- 6 Ibid., Minute Book of the Lakehead Unitarian Fellowship (LUF), 1963-65. Members were: Cecil Blair, Jack Elwert, Marion Julien, A.W. Kallio, George Love, Walter Marcyniuk, Neil Markus, Prue Mor- ton, Mr. & Mrs, M. Redfern, William Sunam, R.H. Reynolds, Don Salo and Bob Stennett. 7 MSTB le 1971. First Steering Committee members were: Annette Augustine, Dr. John Augustine, Georhe Breckenridge, Nan Ernewein, Pam Hunt, Batt Lie, Arne Lie, Rev. Keith Lingwall, Rev. Ken Mof- fatt and Catherine Tett. 8 MSTB le 1972, Newsletter, February 1972. 9 In 1971 the funeral homes in under Bay were: Blake Funeral Chapel, Everest of under Bay, Jenkens Funeral Home and Sargent & Son, Ltd.