Glooscap Heritage Society v. Minister of National Revenue, (2012) 440 N.R. 232 (FCA)

• Judge: Stratas, J.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 05, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 440 N.R. 232 (FCA);2012 FCA 255

Glooscap Heritage Soc. v. MNR (2012), 440 N.R. 232 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.R. TBEd. JA.021

Glooscap Heritage Society (applicant) v. The Minister of National Revenue (respondent)

(A-357-12; 2012 FCA 255; 2012 CAF 255)

Indexed As: Glooscap Heritage Society v. Minister of National Revenue

Federal Court of Appeal

Stratas, J.A.

October 9, 2012.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue notified Glooscap Heritage Society that he would exercise his authority under the Income Tax Act and revoke Glooscap's registration as a charity under the Act. Glooscap intended to challenge the revocation. Glooscap applied for an order delaying the revocation until the court heard its challenge.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the application.

Income Tax - Topic 7533

Exemptions - Particular exemptions - Charitable organizations and foundations - In conjunction with the Central Nova Tourist Association, Glooscap Heritage Society operated the Glooscap Heritage Centre and Mi'kmaw Museum located on the Millbrook First Nation - Following an audit, the Canada Revenue Agency concluded, inter alia, that Glooscap was not operating exclusively for charitable purposes, and instead was operating for the primary purpose of activities benefiting a tax shelter - The Minister notified Glooscap that he would revoke its registration as a charity under the Income Tax Act - Glooscap intended to challenge the revocation - It applied for an order delaying the revocation until the court heard its challenge - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the application - In order to delay the revocation, Glooscap had to satisfy the court that it met the test for the granting of stays and injunctions - Glooscap met the low threshold of an arguable case - However, it did not establish irreparable harm - Without a better understanding of Glooscap's overall financial situation and fundraising ability, the court could not conclude that a loss of donations would result in any irreparable harm to Glooscap or its activities - Glooscap submitted that revocation of its registration as a charity would cause harm to its relationships, particularly with non-aboriginal organizations - However, its evidence went no higher than to identify "jeopardy" or a risk to those relationships - The court accepted that Glooscap would suffer some reputational harm - However, much of that harm, especially in the donor community, would be caused not by the revocation of Glooscap's registration as a charity, but rather by the reassessment of the donors to the tax shelter - Ultimately fatal to Glooscap's application was the requirement that it establish irreparable harm that was unavoidable - Glooscap was warned at an early stage that it might lose its charitable status if it associated with this tax shelter - The balance of convenience also lay against granting relief to Glooscap - The public interest in enforcement deserved significant weight in this case.

Cases Noticed:

International Charity Association Network v. Minister of National Revenue (2008), 375 N.R. 387; 2008 FCA 114, refd to. [para. 4].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, appld. [para. 4].

International Charity Association Network v. Minister of National Revenue (2008), 375 N.R. 383; 2008 FCA 62, refd to. [para. 9].

Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) et autres v. 143471 Canada Inc. et autres, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 339; 167 N.R. 321; 61 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Garford Pty. Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International Canada Ltd. et al. (2010), 406 N.R. 304; 2010 FCA 232, refd to. [para. 31].

Shotclose et al. v. Stoney First Nation (2011), 422 N.R. 191; 2011 FCA 232, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2001), 268 N.R. 328; 2001 FCA 25, refd to. [para. 31].

Superintendent of Bankruptcy v. MacLeod et al. (2010), 402 N.R. 341; 2010 FCA 84, refd to. [para. 31].

Laperrière v. D & A MacLeod Co. - see Superintendent of Bankruptcy v. MacLeod et al.

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Holy Alpha and Omega Church of Toronto v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] N.R. Uned. 122; 2009 FCA 265, refd to. [para. 34].

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764; 262 N.R. 201; 271 A.R. 201; 234 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Backward (1996), vol. 1 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Bruce S. Russell, Q.C., for the applicant;

Rosemary Fincham and April Tate, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McInnes Cooper, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney  General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on October 5, 2012, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Stratas, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on October 9, 2012.