Canada: tax status for pro-life charities at risk.

A recent ruling by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal could result in silencing charitable groups that champion the right to life. In a unanimous judgement, the court upheld the decision of Revenue Canada to deregister the pro-life group Human Life International in Canada Inc. (HLIC) for engaging in "activities designed to sway public opinion on controversial social issues." The Federal Court agreed that such activities "are not charitable activities," but are political.

Writing in The Financial Post, Ottawa lawyer Arthur Drache, who was co-counsel for HLIC at the appeal, warned that "Revenue Canada now has been armed with explicit powers to go after just about any vocal charity that has the nerve to raise or discuss matters that Revenue presumably considers to be controversial social issues." It was not defined which issues are considered "controversial," but it is clear from the decision that life issues is one of them.

Canadian Physicians for Life legal advisor Iain Benson reviewed the case in Lex View, (1) together with lawyer Brad Miller. They write:

"It is too easy to characterize any contentious social issue as `polemical' and thereby throw it off the charitable bandwagon. That would be a mistake. Surely those who are most in need of an advocate are those whom society has overlooked or abandoned however `controversial' such advocacy is.

"When contrasted with the Court's decision in Native Communications Society of B.C. v. Canada (M.N.R.) (1986) 3 F.C. 471, where it rightly held that a native newspaper was a charitable enterprise because of the good it provided to the native community, the Court has made itself vulnerable to the criticism that its conclusions are driven by its sympathies with the charity's purposes, rather than the principles embodied in the common law of charitable trusts.

"In fact, the Court in 1991 in Everywomen's Health Centre Society (1988) v. Her Majesty the Queen specifically noted that the controversial nature of a charity's activities is irrelevant to its charitable status.

`Charity and public opinion do not always go hand in hand; some forms of charity will often precede public opinion, while others will often offend it. Courts are not well equipped to assess public consensus, which is a fragile and volatile concept. The determination of the charitable character of an activity should not become a court battle between pollsters. Courts are asked to decide whether there is an advantage for the public, not whether the public agrees that there is such an advantage.'

"...Concern about issues such as abortion and euthanasia undoubtedly have theoretical, educational and political dimensions. And such concern does not become political because an issue is the subject of controversy . . . . Human Life International in Canada is applying for leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we hope that the Court will take up the opportunity to clarify this important area and perhaps give guidance as to what aspects of a society's actions may be saved as charitable, and `severed' from those activities that cannot be...."

Source: Vital Signs, Canadian Physicians for Life Newsletter, Summer 1998.

(1) Lex View is an analysis of social, public policy, human rights, and moral, implications of high-court decisions. (To receive Lex View by fax or email, contact the Centre for Renewal in Public Policy in Ottawa at 613-567-8010 email: [e-mail].)