Subsection 168(1) - Notice of intention to revoke registration
Cases
Lord's Evangelical Church of Deliverance and Prayer of Toronto v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 6746, 2004 FCA 397
The Minister had not denied natural justice and procedural fairness by revoking registration given that lack of procedural fairness was not seriously advanced in the case of three of the four grounds advanced by the Minister for revocation (the adequacy of the appellant's books and records, lack of conformity of official donation receipts with regulatory requirements, and benefits being paid that were not included on T4 slips) and, as to the fourth (a substantial gift to the pastor), the concerns of the Minister had not been met in a meaningful way.
Canadian Community For the Tel Aviv Foundation v. The Queen, 2002 DTC 6843, 2002 FCA 72
Given the detailed exchange of written submissions that had occurred during audit there was no need for either an oral hearing or a cross-examination of the auditor before the Minister determined to revoke the appellant's registration.
Paragraph 168(1)(b)
Cases
Renaissance International v. MNR, 83 DTC 5024, [1982] CTC 393 (FCA)
The Minister is under the duty to comply with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness before sending a notice pursuant to s. 168(1), and he accordingly must, before sending the notice, give the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity to answer the allegations made against them. The requirement for procedural fairness follows from the adverse effects of the sending of a notice, notwithstanding that such sending does not constitute a final determination of the charity's status.
Paragraph 168(1)(e)
Cases
Humane Society of Canada for the Protection of Animals and the Environment v. M.N.R., 2015 FCA 178
The appellant appealed a CRA decision to revoke its registration, which was made on grounds which focused on the substantial amounts paid for what appeared to be personal expenditures of an officer and director ("O'Sullivan") (with CRA alleging that at least approximately $69,000 of improper reimbursements, whereas the appellant admitted (para. 14) "that approximately $22,000 of Mr. O'Sullivan's personal expenses had been ‘inadvertently' reimbursed by the Appellant and asserted that… comic books had been purchased by the Appellant as ‘investment assets'"), and substantial deficiencies in its books and records.
In finding that the Appeals Directorate's decision to confirm the decision was reasonable, Ryer JA:
- it was within a range of justifiable outcomes for the Appeals Directorate to conclude that the provision of personal benefits to Mr. O'Sullivan, of even the lower amount recognized by the Appellant, constituted serious non-compliance…[and] the record shows a considerable number of instances in which Mr. O'Sullivan received personal benefits (paras. 68-69)
- "the obligation of a charitable organization to maintain adequate books and records is foundational" (para. 80) whereas here the Appellant admitted "it could only directly link its expenditures to 12 of its 42 programs" (para. 76) and there was an "intermingling of Mr. O'Sullivan's personal expenses with the Appellant's expenses in the accounting records" (para. 77)
See summaries under s. 172(3)(a.1) and s. 189(7).