In a recent Federal Court of Appeal matter Ron W. Cameron Charitable Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue) it was an appeal of a CRA decision relating to CRA intending to revoke the organization’s charitable status.  The charity was requesting further information that CRA had on the charity and relevant to the revocation for their appeal.   The case largely deals with rules about disclosure.

There is little information on what the charity did wrong. Perhaps when we read the actual CRA letters and responses from the charity we will understand more.

It appears that one of the former directors may have been an ineligible individual.  They had resigned “as a director and the NIR acknowledged that his resignation resolved the issue.”

The Court noted with respect to the ineligible individual:

[35] I do not see how the requested material is relevant to the appeal. Even the appellant acknowledges that the NIR was not issued on the basis that there was an ineligible individual on the board of directors, but for other reasons – a failure to devote resources to charitable purposes. The Confirmation also refers only to those other reasons.

There is more about this issue at the bottom of this blog.

The reference to “a failure to devote resources to charitable purposes” is the only hint of what the CRA allegations are.

The Court dealt with other requests for information and documents:

[24] The appellant claims in the Notice of Appeal that the alleged inactivity of the charity resulted from the medical disability of past director Ron Wood. They say (at paragraph 28) that the disclosure is relevant to “whether disability discrimination or a breach of procedural fairness occurred”.

[25] The appellant has provided no evidence of Mr. Wood’s disability and if he required or requested an accommodation from the CRA. The appellant has not indicated whether or how a GBA Plus analysis was relevant to the Minister’s decision.

The court noted:

[28] The appellant has not provided any evidence that discrimination or breach of procedural fairness occurred. Material that “could be relevant in the hopes of later establishing relevance” does not fall within Rule 317; the Rule does not sanction fishing expeditions (Tseil-Waututh at para. 108, also citing Access at para. 21).

On the topic of reasonable apprehension of bias, the Court notes:

[50] The appellant makes a general claim in the Notice of Appeal that there is a reasonable apprehension of CRA bias. The submissions make various allegations and cite as evidence, for example, a 2019 Senate Report on the charitable sector and a 2023 Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson report.

[51] The appellant has provided no evidence supporting a reasonable apprehension of bias. Further, the appellant has not demonstrated how the documents sought would be relevant to such an allegation.

[52] In reliance on the cases cited in respect of sub-paragraph 1(b) above, and for similar reasons, no further production of documents will be ordered in respect of paragraph 1 of the request.

There were other requests for information, and the Court did not agree to them.

The Court notes:

1. Conclusion

[55] The documents requested are not accessible under Rule 317 as they are beyond the scope of what was considered by the decision-maker and are not relevant to the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. In light of the Minister’s success, costs of the dispute concerning the Rule 317 request shall be awarded to the Minister in any event of the cause.

Here is some information on the  Ron W. Cameron Charitable Foundation on the CRA website and our CharityData.ca website.

There is not much information available about the foundation.  That is quite normal in Canada, where transparency for some charities, especially foundations, is very limited.  Many foundations don’t provide any information beyond certain mandatory filings which ask for very limited information.

We know that it is a registered charity with the designation of a private foundation.  It is based on St. Albert, Alberta.  It has a description of ongoing programs, which appears to be just a recitation of its objects:

Ongoing programs:
TO SOLICIT AND RECEIVE GIFTS, BEQUESTS, TRUSTS, FUNDS AND PROPERTY AND BENEFICIALLY, OR AS A TRUSTEE OR AGENT, TO HOLD, INVEST, DEVELOP, MANAGE, ACCUMULATE AND ADMINISTER FUNDS AND PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTING FUNDS AND PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY TO REGISTERED CHARITIES AND “QUALIFIED DONEES” UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES ANCILLARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

The three directors on the 2022 return are:

As the RON W. CAMERON CHARITABLE FOUNDATION is a Federal Corporation there is some more information available about it on the Corporations Canada website.

It is interesting that when you look at the Corporate Profile report on the Corporations Canada website as of today (August 26, 2023) it provides as follows:

Federal Corporation Information

In order to alleviate your concern regarding an ineligible individual, Mr. Tennant has agreed to step down as a director and the Foundation is currently in the process of appointing a replacement director and will provide an updated Register of Directors to Charities Directorate. We trust this action will satisfy your concerns regarding the ineligible individual. The Foundation respectfully requests however that you provide a more detailed explanation as to why Charities Directorate has determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretion to revoke the charitable registration of the Foundation on this basis. We agree that Mr. Tennant meets the definition of ineligible individual pursuant to 149.1{c) in respect to his directorship of New Horizon Charitable Foundation. However, as you are aware, New Horizon Charitable Foundation was revoked effective November i 6, 2013, almost five year ago and the New Horizon Charitable Foundation transactions took place well before the effective date. Further, we have been advised that New Horizon Charitable Foundation did not follow the advice of Mr. Tennant with respect to the transactions that led to New Horizon Charitable Foundation having its registered charity status revoked. The Charities Directorate exercising its discretion to revoke the registration of this Fourdation on this basis seems unduly harsh to Mr. Tennart and the Foundation.