The United Church of Canada argument respecting congregation properties of the former Presbyterian Church as found in bylaw section 266 (a) interprets the provincial statutes incorporating the Board of Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Canada as vesting a reversionary interest in such property in the denomination [reversionary interest means that the denomination has an interest in the property if the congregation ceases to exist] per

All lands and premises which have been or shall hereafter at any time be held by any trustee or trustees for any congregation which shall have ceased to exist or has become disorganized shall vest in the said Board of Trustees on trust to sell the same and pay over the proceeds of the said sale to the Treasurer of the said Church for the benefit of the Home Mission scheme thereof or as may be otherwise determined by the General Assembly of the said Church. [An Act incorporating the Board of Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (Ontario), article 5]

where The United Church of Canada Act reads

Any real or personal property belonging to or held by or in trust for or to the use of any congregation, whether a congregation of the negotiating churches or a congregation received into The United Church after the coming into force of this Act, solely for its own benefit, and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise, shall not be subject to the provisions of sections five and six hereof or to the control of The United Church, unless and until any such congregation at a meeting thereof regularly called for the purpose shall consent that such provisions shall apply to any such property or a specified part thereof. [(Dominion), article 8]

Any real or personal property belonging to or held by or in trust for or to the use of any congregation, whether a congregation of the negotiating churches or a congregation received into The United Church after the coming into force of this Act, solely for its own benefit, and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof or to the control of The United Church, unless and until any such congregation at a meeting thereof regularly called for the purpose shall consent that such provisions shall apply to any such property or a specified part thereof. [(Ontario), article 6]

[reference to the provincial Act is important as property is the jurisdiction of the provincial not the federal government], though the Basis of Union {Schedule A} omits reference to "and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise"

Any property or funds owned by a church, charge, circuit or congregation at the time of the union solely for its own benefit, or vested in trustees for the sole benefit of such church, charge, circuit or congregation, and not for the denomination of which the said church, charge, circuit or congregation formed a part, shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the union or by any legislation of The United Church without the consent of the church, charge, circuit or congregation for which such property is held in trust. [(Dominion), Schedule A article 7]

despite the Presbyterian Church in Canada not interpreting its incorporation as in any sense changing the rights respecting congregation property for any congregation which shall not have ceased to exist or become disorganized [as at present with the continuing Presbyterian Church in Canada].

The United Church of Canada argument and the Supreme Court of Ontario response is summed up succinctly in Aird v. Johnson [1929] 4 D.L.R 664

The defendants allege that the property in question was held by its trustees for the benefit of the congregation in connection with the Presbyterian Church in Canada; that by the Act of 1900 (Ont.), c. 135, the Presbyterian Church in Canada became entitled to an interest therein ; that the Presbyterian Church in Canada united with the Methodist and Congregational Churches in Canada and formed the United Church of Canada, which, by virtue of an Act of the Legislature of Ontario, the United Church of Canada Act, 1925 (Ont.), c. 125, succeeded to the interests of the Presbyterian Church in Canada in the said property ; and the defendants claim that the Presbyterian congregation at Grafton, having voted in favour of union, became a congregation in the United Church, and the defendants allege that they hold the said property, under the provisions of s. 4 of the United Church of Canada Act, for the benefit of the said congregation as a part of the United Church of Canada, subject to the terms of Schedule A. to the said last mentioned Act. If such be the effect of the legislation, it is unnecessary to consider other questions raised by Mr. Fraser.

Subject to the provisions of s. 6, it is declared in substance, by s. 4, that all property in Ontario belonging to or held in trust for any congregation of any of the negotiating churches shall be held for the benefit of the same congregation as a part of the United Church. Section 6 declares that property belonging to a congregation, "whether a congregation of the negotiating churches or a congregation received into The United Church after the coming into force of this Act, solely for its own benefit, and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof or to the control of The United Church, unless and until any such congregation at a meeting thereof regularly called for the purpose shall consent that such provisions shall apply to any such property . . . . "

Mr. Mason pointed out that s. 6 applied only to property held by a congregation solely for its own benefit, and contended that under the Ontario Act of 1900, s. 5, if the congregation ceased to exist, the property would vest in the trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Canada for other purposes than those of the congregation, and that, therefore, not being held in trust solely for its benefit, s. 6 had no application.

Section 5, relied on by Mr. Mason, reads as follows:-

"All lands and premises which have been or shall hereafter at any time be held by any trustee or trustees for any congregation which shall have ceased to exist or has become disorganized shall vest in the said Board of Trustees on trust to sell the same and pay over the proceeds of the said sale to the Treasurer of the said Church for the benefit of the Home Mission scheme thereof or as may be otherwise determined by the General Assembly of the said Church."

This section applies only (a) to a congregation which, at the time of the passing of that Act (April 30, 1900), shall have ceased to exist, and (b) to a congregation which has become disorganized.

The St. Andrew's congregation at Grafton had not, when s. 5 came into effect, ceased to exist, and there is no evidence that at that time it had become disorganised ; and, therefore, in my opinion, s. 5 does not operate on the interests of the congregation in the said property and the same is not subject to the provision of s. 4 unless and until the congregation "at a meeting thereof regularly called for the purpose shall consent that such provision shall apply" to the said property.

or with the Supreme Court of Canada response in Ferguson v. MacLean 1930 S.C.R. 630, quoting one of the judges

The congregation, as it is constituted at the present time, is alone, in my opinion, beneficially interested in the property and entitled thereto. This, as I see it, is the meaning and intent of the legislation. [Lamont J.]

to the effect that the legislators, as interpreted by the respective Supreme Courts of the Province and Dominion, did not intend the section incorporating the Board of Trustees of the former Presbyterian Church in Canada

"all lands and premises which have been or shall hereafter at any time be held by any trustee or trustees for any congregation which shall have ceased to exist or has become disorganized shall vest in the said Board of Trustees on trust to sell the same and pay over the proceeds of the said sale to the Treasurer of the said Church for the benefit of the Home Mission scheme thereof or as may be otherwise determined by the General Assembly of the said Church"

to operate on the interests of the congregation for properties which otherwise would be excepted per sections six and eight of the Provincial and Dominion Acts respectively.

So simply [it has not been simple thus far] the Supreme Courts declared the interpretation of The United Church of Canada Act is what a person not familiar with the argument reads in the Basis of Union article 5.4

Any property or funds owned by a church, charge, circuit, or congregation at the time of the Union solely for its own benefit, or vested in trustees for the sole benefit of such church, charge, circuit, or congregation, and not for the denomination of which the said church, charge, circuit, or congregation formed a part, shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the Union or by any legislation of the United Church without the consent of the church, charge, circuit, or congregation for which such property is held in trust.

And if the Supreme Court says "no" the church may not continue to make the same argument, but the United Church of Canada continued to make the same argument because nobody noticed until nobody remembered [though with the final research and drafting of the request for ruling and the resulting appeal discovered "there are too many libraries...", the church can't hide this forever -- for example source document for a microfiche of damaged Quebec Statutes held by the National Archives of Canada was from a Pennsylvania library].

The United Church of Canada Act authorized only lawful acts or things, of which requirement the Basis of Union may not be inconsistent, making bylaw(s) following the Supreme Court interpretations which were otherwise ultra vires the church and, not having complied with its own requirement respecting conference(s) approval before legislating [passing bylaws] on all matters respecting property, affecting every bylaw related to matters of property.

As requested in my appeal

Further
 i. as the deficiencies of bylaw section 266(a), formerly 261(b), 112(b), 77(a), 78(a), 34(a), have been recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church; and
 ii. as the General Council was aware of those deficiencies or ought to have been aware of those deficiencies as respondent to Aird v. Johnson [1929] 4 D.L.R 664 and Ferguson v. MacLean 1930 S.C.R. 630; and
 iii. as the Judicial Committee ruling was interpreted without qualification "no basic changes in the Manual could be made without action of the General Council" [1977 rop p646, 1976 year book pp9, 12, 13];
if the General Council should contemplate any bylaw with similar intent as that argued against by the appeal and seek the approval of Conference(s), "the imperative of justice, which, as a measure of faithfulness, must not only be done but also be seen to be done" [Manual 065(b)] requires the church to "be seen", particularly as to the above deficiencies being constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church, as part of any such reconsideration.

Postscript
...Erskine and American United Church recently amalgamated with another congregation, with Montreal Presbytery requiring a substantial amount of the sale of the property for its own purposes though advised of the above. American Presbyterian Church came into the United Church of Canada from the Presbytery of New York by special action of the first General Council in 1925 as recorded in the Record of Proceedings 1925 pp.3, 7, 16, 63, 66 and even by the United Church of Canada argument was not subject to the Quebec Act incorporating the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
...the deficiencies have been recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church.