An emotional and deeply personal debate over how loved ones are remembered has prompted Cold Lake council to hit pause before making any final decisions on cemetery memorial rules.

At its Dec. 16 Corporate Priorities Committee meeting, council voted to direct administration to return with possible amendments to the City’s Cemetery Management Policy before any single appeal is approved. The move signals a step back from a case-by-case decision and toward a broader policy discussion.

Appeal Triggers Wider Policy Review

The discussion stems from an appeal filed by a Cold Lake resident after the administration denied a memorial permit for a headstone that included writing and a photograph on the back. That design directly contravenes the City’s current cemetery policy.

The policy governs cemetery fees, interment rights, and memorial specifications at Lakeview Cemetery and Grande Centre Memorial Park Cemetery, both owned and operated by the City. It strictly prohibits inscriptions, lettering, photos, or adornments on the back or sides of upright monuments.

Council first heard the appeal at its Sept. 23 regular meeting and deferred a decision to gather more information, which was presented this week.

Why the Rule Exists

Kristy Isert, the City of Cold Lake’s General Manager of Corporate Services, explained the rule dates back to a comprehensive 2016 review of cemetery operations conducted by a specialized consultant.

“Back in 2016, there was a fulsome review of the City of Cold Lake’s cemetery procedures, as well as its capital infrastructure,” Isert said. She noted the consultant recommended standardizing monument requirements to improve consistency, manageability, and long-term aesthetics.

One key recommendation was to prohibit markings on the backs of headstones.

“The intent is that all of the writing is on the front and then that represents the memorialization of the person who is in that plot,” Isert explained. Many cemetery layouts place monuments back-to-back, making rear inscriptions difficult to see and potentially confusing.

Existing monuments with rear inscriptions were grandfathered in, but all new monuments must comply with the policy. Isert said the administration has consistently denied non-compliant requests.

She added that the City regularly receives requests for oversized monuments, affixed adornments, or monuments installed before an interment.

“In each of those circumstances … we have been saying no,” she said. “Those requests would be contravening the City’s policy, and we would not be able to permit them.”

Council Weighs Fairness and Precedent

Several councillors acknowledged the emotional weight of the issue while raising concerns about fairness.

Coun. Vicky Lefebvre described the matter as deeply personal but cautioned against altering the rules for one case.

“This is a sensitive topic … I just feel that we should go with your recommendation to stay with our current administration, how it’s written,” she said.

Lefebvre warned that approving one exception could set a precedent and create expectations for future appeals, especially from families whose similar requests were previously denied.

Coun. Dawn Weber suggested a possible middle ground, noting that while the design could blur the distinction between the front and back of the headstone, the family had clearly put significant thought into honouring their loved one.

Policy Change, Not One-Off Decisions

CAO Kevin Nagoya cautioned council against making exceptions on a case-by-case basis, advising that any change should come through policy amendments rather than a single appeal.

“Our advice to City council is if council wants to do something, is to do it by policy,” Nagoya said.

He also warned that creating exemptions based on factors like residency length or community impact would require clearly defined criteria and could open the door to difficult, emotional, and administratively complex decisions in the future.

For now, council has opted to take a step back, asking administration to explore potential policy amendments before revisiting the appeal.