Bowman
T.C.J.:
These
appeals
which
are
part
of
a
series
of
appeals
heard
in
1998
relating
to
paragraph
8(
1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
raise
two
issues.
In
the
cases
of
Brian
K.
Seim
and
Timothy
J.
Nielsen
the
first
issue
is
whether
they
were,
as
Commended
Workers
of
the
Plymouth
Brethren,
members
of
the
clergy
or
regular
ministers
of
a
religious
denomination.
The
other
four
appellants
(Kraft,
Baker,
Kurtz
and
McPeek)
are
ordained
Lutheran
ministers
and
it
is
conceded
by
the
respondent
that
they
are
members
of
the
clergy.
The
second
issue,
which
arises
in
all
of
the
cases
in
this
group,
is
whether
these
appellants
were
ministering
to
a
congregation
or
were
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
denomination.
I
shall
deal
first
with
the
matter
of
the
status
of
Mr.
Seim
and
Mr.
Nielsen.
The
Plymouth
Brethren
are
a
large
and
recognized
Church
founded
in
Plymouth,
England
in
about
1830.
They
are
of
an
evangelical
persuasion,
with
a
considerable
emphasis
on
missionary
work.
They
accept
the
Bible
as
the
ultimate
guide.
It
is
said
that
they
have
no
“ordained”
ministry
and
it
is
true
they
do
not
use
the
expression.
Ordination
may
be
regarded
as
the
formal
ceremony
whereby
one
is
appointed
or
admitted
to
the
ministry
of
the
Church.
The
Oxford
English
Dictionary
defines
“ordain”
as
follows:
11.
Eccl.
To
appoint
or
admit
to
the
ministry
of
the
Christian
Church;
to
invest
with
a
ministerial
or
sacerdotal
character
by
the
laying
on
of
hands
or
other
symbolic
action;
to
confer
holy
orders
upon.
Formerly,
and
still
in
a
general
sense,
used
of
any
sacred
office,
including
that
of
bishop,
but
now,
in
the
Ch.
of
England,
used
esp.
of
admission
to
the
orders
of
deacon
and
priest;
in
other
churches,
of
ceremonial
admission
to
the
ministry;
in
Presbyterian
churches,
lay
elders
also
are
ordained.
The
Oxford
Dictionary
of
World
Religions,
in
a
lengthy
article
on
ordination,
describes
ordination
as
“The
conferral
of
office
in
a
formal,
often
ritualized
manner.”
After
describing
the
Roman
Catholic
and
Orthodox
practices,
it
goes
on
to
say:
In
Protestant
churches
ordination
is
generally
conceived
as
an
appointment
by
the
church
to
carry
out
the
functions
of
celebrating
the
Lord’s
Supper
and
preaching,
rather
than
as
a
sacramental
gift.
Somewhat
various
ideas
are
displayed
in
Baptist
practice,
for
example,
where
an
ordinand
is
examined
by
an
association
of
churches,
but
actually
ordained
by
a
local
congregation
to
be
its
pastor.
I
think
that
in
these
cases
there
has
been
an
undue
emphasis
on
the
ritual
of
ordination.
In
a
hierarchical
ecclesiastical
structure
the
ceremony
may
have
some
significance,
but
in
many
churches
in
the
evangelical
movement
the
very
idea
of
investing
someone
with
the
trappings
of
spiritual
superiority
is
anathema.
One
of
the
significant
features
of
the
evangelical
churches
that,
since
the
Protestant
Reformation,
have
rejected
the
authority
of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
is
the
belief
that
one
may
approach
God
directly
without
the
intervention
of
an
intermediary.
This
may
be
one
of
the
reasons
for
which
the
Plymouth
Brethren
do
not
use
the
term
“ordination”.
The
process
whereby
Mr.
Seim
and
Mr.
Nielsen
became
“Commended
Workers”
of
the
Plymouth
Brethren
is
a
formal
one
whereby
their
doctrinal
beliefs
are
examined
by
the
church.
They
are
certified
in
a
formal
religious
service.
There
is
a
laying
on
of
hands,
a
ceremony
which
is
of
considerable
significance
in
many
denominations.
They
are
recognized
and
held
out
as
ministers
in
a
Letter
of
Commendation
and
in
published
listings
of
Commended
Workers.
They
are
accountable
to
the
Commending
Church
and
perform
the
usual
pastoral
functions
expected
of
a
member
of
the
clergy.
Although
they
would
deny
having
any
spiritual
superiority
to
the
laity
as
being
inconsistent
with
their
fundamental
beliefs,
I
do
not
think
that
because
one
church
may
treat
its
clergy
as
spiritually
superior
and
another
does
not
should
be
determinative
of
the
status
of
the
minister
of
each.
They
are
certainly
regarded
as
spiritual
or
religious
leaders
within
their
church.
Clearly,
Brian
K.
Seim
and
Timothy
J.
Nielsen
are,
in
my
view,
regular
ministers
of
a
religious
denomination.
Indeed,
I
can
discern
no
reason
for
holding
that
they
are
not
members
of
the
clergy.
Whether
one
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination
depends
upon
the
practices
of
the
particular
denomination.
There
seems
to
be
an
assumption,
unwarranted
in
my
view,
that
to
be
a
member
of
the
“clergy”
the
particular
denomination
must
call
the
ceremony
whereby
the
person
is
set
apart
spiritually
“ordination”.
This
faith
in
the
power
of
words
to
create
reality
is
misplaced.
I
should
have
thought
that
what
matters
to
whether
a
person
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
is
what
he
or
she
is,
not
what
the
particular
denomination
calls
the
ceremony
whereby
the
person
gets
there.
The
ritual
whereby
one
becomes
a
minister
or
a
person
set
apart
from
the
laity
as
a
spiritual
leader
in
a
particular
church
may
not
in
all
cases
be
called
“ordination”.
The
argument
for
restricting
the
term
“clergy”
to
persons
who
are
“ordained”
seems
to
be
premised
on
a
requirement
not
only
that
there
be
a
formal
ceremony
investing
the
person
with
the
trappings
and
accoutrements,
tangible
and
intangible,
of
spiritual
superiority
appropriate
to
the
particular
church,
but
also
that
the
church
call
the
ritual
“ordination”.
It
is
wrong
in
principle
to
require
that
to
be
a
member
of
the
“clergy”
one
must
not
only
be
“ordained”
but
also
that
“ordain”
be
restricted
to
only
those
churches
that
use
the
term.
If
“ordain”
has
the
meaning
given
to
it
in
the
Oxford
English
Dictionary
set
out
above,
it
is
sufficient
that
there
be
a
formal
ritual
whereby
the
person
is
set
aside
spiritually.
I
find
nothing
in
the
definition
of
clergy
that
I
have
examined
that
restricts
its
use
to
only
these
churches
that
use
the
term.
The
definition
of
“clergé”,
the
word
used
in
the
French
version
of
paragraph
8(
I
)(c),
in
the
Grand
Dictionnaire
Encyclopédique
Larousse
says
nothing
about
“ordination”:
CLERGE
n.m.
(lat.
ecclés.
clericatus).
I.
Corps
des
clercs
ou
des
ecclésiastiques
d’un
culte,
d’un
pays,
etc.:
Le
clergé
catholique,
anglican.
Le
clergé
de
France.
2.
Corps
des
ecclésiastiques
qui
procèdent
ou
assistent
en
habit
de
choeur
à
une
cérémonie
religieuse.
It
comes
to
this.
Whether
one
is
member
of
the
clergy
in
a
particular
church
depends
upon
the
procedures
and
rituals
of
that
church.
It
requires
a
formal
act
of
recognition
whereby
that
person
is
set
apart
from
the
other
members
of
the
church
as
a
spiritual
leader.
It
does
not
require
necessarily
that
it
be
done
by
someone
higher
up
the
ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
Some
churches
recognize
no
such
hierarchy.
It
may
be
done
by
the
congregation.
It
requires
a
formal,
serious
and
long-term
commitment
to
the
ministry.
If
these
elements
exist,
whether
or
not
the
particular
denomination
calls
the
formal
ritual
“ordination”,
the
person
accorded
that
status
by
the
church
is
in
my
view
a
member
of
the
clergy.
In
Erindale
Bible
Chapel
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(October
21,
1988),
Doc.
87-863(UI)
(T.C.C.),
Deputy
Judge
Millar
said:
The
above
definitions
are
persuasive
of
the
view
that
without
ordination
at
the
hands
of
a
bishop
or
other
high
ecclesiastic,
there
is
no
clergyman.
Anxious
reflection
however
persuades
me
that
such
a
view
would
be
too
rigid
and
would
fail
to
take
account
of
existing
realities
within
Canada.
It
must
be
remembered
that
the
above
dictionaries
have
English
origins
and
tend
to
reflect
more
or
less
English
conditions,
with
its
established
church.
In
this
country
the
Protestant
wing
is
enormously
fractured.
This
gives
rise
to
many
sects
and
independent
congregations,
the
majority
of
which
nevertheless
subscribe
to
the
central
tenets
of
Christian
theology.
Judge
Miller,
after
referring
to
Bien
v.
Cooke
(1943),
[1944]
2
D.L.R.
187
(Sask.
K.B.)
which
I
have
quoted
in
Fitch
v.
R.
[reported
[1999]
2
C.T.C.
2419
(T.C.C.)],
continues:
I
have
discovered
no
other
useful
authorities
on
the
definition
of
“clergyman”.
The
Appellant
committed
the
whole
of
his
working
energies
to
preaching
the
gospel,
counselling
the
troubled
who
sought
the
wisdom
and
solace
of
a
spiritual
leader,
performing
marriages,
visiting
the
sick,
the
inmates
of
prisons,
the
aged
and
the
confined,
and
lecturing
at
a
bible
college;
all
within
the
context
of
a
faith
mission
based
on
a
Christian
theology
and
purpose.
It
must
therefore
be
concluded
that
if
Mr.
Rumford
was
not
a
clergyman
he
was
indubitably
playing
out
the
role
of
a
clergyman.
He
was
not
pronouncing
on
matters
of
dogma.
He
did
not
claim
to
intercede
with
the
divine
on
behalf
of
the
laity
in
its
anxieties
and
aspirations.
He
may
not
have
performed
all
the
functions
that
the
clergyman
is
licensed
to
undertake.
But
in
all
his
endeavours
he
conforms
to
the
general
perception
in
this
country
of
what
a
clergyman
is
and
does.
Indeed
some
would
say
he
conforms
more
closely
than
do
many
clergymen
who
spend
their
lives
operating
at
the
core
of
large
ecclesiastical
bureaucracies.
Once
again,
after
anxious
reflection
I
would
conclude
that
in
all
reality,
considering
the
rich
variety
of
ecclesiastical
denominations,
sects
and
religious
orders,
with
their
varieties
of
ritual
and
theological
stance
within
the
Christian
community,
Mr.
Rumford
must
in
this
country
be
regarded
as
a
clergyman.
This
conclusion
is
not
reached
easily
or
with
confidence.
The
countervailing
arguments
are
almost
as
convincing,
some
might
say
more
convincing.
If
forced
to
hold,
I
would
nevertheless
do
so
in
the
affirmative.
However,
I
conclude
that
it
is
unnecessary
for
me
to
decide
that
issue.
Judge
Goetz
of
this
court
in
Small
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
(1989),
89
D.T.C.
663
(T.C.C.),
refused
to
accept
the
observations
of
Millar
D.J.T.C.
and
held
that
to
be
a
member
of
the
clergy
an
individual
must
go
through
a
ritual
called
“ordination”
by
the
particular
denomination.
I
agree
with
Millar
D.J.T.C.
and
I
disagree
with
Judge
Goetz.
It
is
worthwhile
referring
to
the
observations
of
both
Professor
Faulkner
and
Professor
Wiebe.
Professor
Faulkner
said:
In
practice,
then,
“ministers”
are
consciously
evaluated
and
certified
as
exemplars
of
their
community’s
standards.
When
they
assert
that
they
have
a
calling
to
ministry,
their
religious
institution
examines
their
call
with
great
care.
They
are
then
generally
commissioned,
ordained,
commended
or
otherwise
recognized
officially
in
a
public
ritual
which
reminds
ministers
and
laity
alike
what
standards
they
exemplify.
What
they
call
the
ritual
does
not
matter:
what
the
ritual
celebrates
as
the
minister’s
function
does
matter,
[emphasis
added].
Professor
Wiebe
said
in
his
report:
...full-time
leaders
[called
‘resident
workers’,
‘commissioned
elders’,
or
by
some
similar
locution]
who
have
some
theological
training
and
may
find
themselves
preaching
frequently
and
carrying
on
the
kinds
of
duties
undertaken
by
‘clergy
persons’
or
‘ministers’
in
other
traditions.
And
like
other
‘ministers
and
clergy
persons’,
they
are
distinguishable
from
the
rest
of
the
congregation
even
though
they
are
not
ordained
in
some
kind
of
special
liturgical
service.
In
being
in
full-time
service
and
fulfilling
most
of
the
tasks
carried
out
by
‘clergy’
and
‘minister’
in
other
traditions,
they
are,
so
to
speak,
functional
equivalents
to
them
although
they
do
not
use
traditional
ecclesiastical
terminology
to
indicate
that.
I
have
been
referred
to
no
binding
authority,
administrative
practice
or
definition
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
view
that
Mr.
Seim
and
Mr.
Nielsen
are
members
of
the
clergy
or
regular
ministers
within
the
context
of
the
practices
of
the
Plymouth
Brethren.
Accordingly,
it
is
not
necessary
for
me
to
review
the
many
cases
referred
to
by
counsel.
I
turn
then
to
their
functions.
Reverend
Gerald
Kraft
Reverend
Gerald
Kraft
is
an
ordained
minister
of
the
Conservative
Baptists.
He
was
employed
by
Outreach
Canada.
He
acted
as
assistant
pastor
of
South
Delta
Baptist
Church,
but
in
addition,
as
an
employee
of
Outreach
Canada
he
travelled
to
a
large
number
of
churches
where
he
preached,
led
religious
services,
and
acted
as
an
interim
minister
to
churches
who
did
not
have
a
pastor.
In
many
cases
he
would
work
with
a
pastor
or
would
work
with
churches
that
were
having
difficulties.
I
am
unable
to
appreciate
the
force
of
the
argument
that
Reverend
Kraft
was
not
ministering
to
a
congregation.
As
I
said
in
the
Miller
case
[McGorman
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(February
26,
1999),
Doc.
86-
355(IT)O,
96-4848(IT)G
(T.C.C.)],
it
is
not
necessary
that
a
minister
be
fixed
in
one
place.
He
ministered
to
the
spiritual
needs
of
a
number
of
Baptist
congregations
and
in
my
view
there
is
no
basis
for
interpreting
paragraph
8(1)(c)
in
a
manner
that
deduction
were
restricted
its
application
to
those
who
serve
only
one
congregation.
In
light
of
this
conclusion
I
need
not
deal
with
the
appellant’s
alternative
argument
that
Reverend
Kraft
was
engaged
in
full
time
administrative
service.
Reverend
Vic
Baker
Reverend
Vic
Baker
is
an
ordained
Baptist
minister
who
was
at
the
relevant
time
the
chaplain
of
Ray
of
Hope.
Ray
of
Hope
comprises
three
custodial
facilities
in
Kitchener,
Ontario
for
young
offenders
serving
periods
of
incarceration
for
criminal
offences.
He
performed
essentially
the
same
functions
as
a
prison
chaplain,
giving
spiritual
counselling
to
young
persons
who
were
obliged
to
spend
time
at
Ray
of
Hope.
He
organized
and
led
weekly
chapel
services
at
each
of
Ray
of
Hope’s
three
facilities.
He
led
Bible
studies
and
organized
religious
events.
He
was
available
to
everyone,
irrespective
of
their
particular
religious
persuasion,
if
any.
In
addition
he
preached
in
other
churches
eight
to
10
times
a
year
and
was
active
in
youth
groups.
It
is
noteworthy
that
the
Department’s
own
administrative
practice
treats
prison
chaplains
as
“ministering
to
a
congregation”,
and
in
my
view
quite
rightly.
Interpretation
Bulletin
IT-141
states:
5.
A
congregation
is
not
defined
by
territorial
boundaries
nor
by
the
number
of
people
gathered
together
in
one
place.
Accordingly,
chaplains
in
the
armed
forces
or
with
an
institution
are
generally
considered
to
minister
to
congregations.
I
have
seen
no
satisfactory
explanation
why
the
Department
refused
to
apply
its
own
interpretation
bulletin.
Their
administrative
practice
in
this
regard
is
sound.
Although
administrative
practice
is
not
determinative
nor
can
it
prevail
in
the
face
of
clear
statutory
language,
it
cannot
be
ignored,
as
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
observed
in
Harel
v.
Quebec
(Deputy
Minister
of
Revenue),
(1977),
77
D.T.C.
5438
(S.C.C.)
at
pages
5441-2:
I
would
nevertheless
conclude
in
favour
of
the
appellant
on
the
basis
of
the
respondent’s
administrative
policy.
Clearly,
this
policy
could
not
be
taken
into
consideration
if
it
were
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act.
In
the
case
at
bar,
however,
taking
into
account
the
historical
development
that
I
will
review
rapidly,
this
administrative
practice
may
validly
be
referred
to
since
the
best
that
can
be
said
from
respondent’s
point
of
view
is
that
the
legislation
is
ambiguous.
the
administrative
interpretation
of
the
provincial
Act
was
consistent
with
that
of
the
federal
Act,
so
that
in
1965
a
case
similar
to
that
of
appellant
would
have
been
decided
in
his
favour.
This
administrative
interpretation
was
maintained
il
196&
d
which
time,
for
reasons
that
have
not
DE
explained,
the
depart-
ment
reversed
its
policy.
Once
again,
l
am
not
saying
that
the
administrative
interpretation
could
contradict
a
clear
legislative
text,
but
in
a
situation
such
as
I
have
outlined,
this
interpretat
has
real
weight
and,
in
case
of
doubt
about
the
meaning
of
the
legislation,
becomes
an
important
factor.
[emphasis
added]
In
my
view,
the
Department’s
departure
from
its
own
practice
is
quite
inexplicable.
As
the
House
of
Lords
observed
in
Pemsel
v.
Special
Commissioners
of
Income
Tax,
[1891]
A.C.
531
(U.K.
H.L.)
at
page
539:
To
my
mind
it
is
rather
startling
to
find
the
established
practice
of
so
many
years
suddenly
set
aside
by
an
administrative
department
of
their
own
motion.
It
is
true,
the
congregation
at
Ray
of
Hope
is
in
a
sense
a
captive
audience,
and
it
is
not
denominationally
homogeneous.
Nonetheless,
it
is
a
congregation
whose
spiritual
needs
are
great
and
Reverend
Baker’s
work
is
exceedingly
important.
The
definitions
of
“congregation”
in
The
Oxford
English
Dictionary
require
neither
voluntary
attendance
nor
homogeneity
of
religious
belief.
The
definitions
in
that
dictionary
indicate
that
it
is
an
extensible
term.
I
cite
only
a
few
by
way
of
illustration:
5.
In
English
versions
of
the
Bible,
applied
in
the
O.T.
to
the
collective
body
of
the
Israelites
in
the
wilderness,
and
to
a
public
solemn
assembly
of
the
people
or
nation:
so
congregation
of
the
Lord,
etc.
b.
Hence,
in
O.T.
language,
in
certain
phrases,
e.g.
the
congregation
of
saints,
of
the
wicked,
of
evildoers,
of
hypocrites,
etc.
=
whole
body,
company.
6.
Used
by
Tindale
to
translate
[illegible
text]
in
the
N.T.,
and
much
used
by
the
Eng.
Reformers
of
the
16th
c.
instead
of
CHURCH
(on
account
of
the
current
restriction
of
the
latter
term
to
the
clergy
or
clerical
order):
a.
in
sense
of
the
whole
body
of
the
faithful,
the
Church
of
Christ.
b.
in
sense
of
a
particular
local
assembly
or
society
of
believers,
a
‘church’
(in
the
Congregational
sense).
c.
A
body
of
Christians,
a
denomination.
7.
A
body
of
persons
assembled
for
religious
worship
or
to
hear
a
preacher.
(The
most
common
modern
use.)
b.
The
body
of
persons
who
habitually
attend
or
belong
to
a
particular
place
of
worship.
I
can
think
of
no
expression
more
apt
to
describe
Reverend
Baker’s
function
than
“ministering
to
a
congregation”.
The
view
expressed
by
MacKay
J.
in
Zylstra
Estate
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
(1994),
94
D.T.C.
6687
(Fed.
T.D.)
at
page
6696
is
extraordinarily
restrictive:
Thus,
a
gathering
of
persons
way
well
be
a
congregation
for
some
purposes,
but
unless
it
is
a
gathering
for
shared
religious
purposes
recognized
by
a
religious
denomination
for
its
regular
organizational
religious
activities,
it
does
not
qualify
as
a
“congregation”
with
the
meaning
of
that
word
in
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Act.
The
observation
was,
of
course,
obiter,
and
is,
in
my
respectful
view,
unduly
limited
in
that
it
fails
to
recognize
the
variety
of
ways
in
which
people
may
come
together
to
worship
God,
or
the
disparity
in
belief,
background
and
motivation
that
may
exist
among
the
members
of
the
heterogeneous
group
that
may
make
up
an
assemblage
which
the
term
“congregation”
encompasses.
The
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
[reported
[1997]
2
C.T.C.
203
(Fed.
C.A.)]
stated
that
MacKay
J.
was
not
purporting
to
define
the
words
in
paragraph
8(1)(c)
for
all
purposes
and
it
is
fortunate
that
it
did
put
this
limitation
on
the
extent
to
which
the
trial
judgment
in
McRae
[Zylstra,
supra]
can
be
relied
on,
because
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
has
used
it
as
an
excuse
to
disallow
virtually
all
claims
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c).
Brian
K.
Seim
I
have
already
held
that
Brian
K.
Seim
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination.
Was
he
ministering
to
a
congregation?
He
was
employed
by
International
Teams.
He
ministered
to
a
variety
of
congregations
in
churches
in
the
Toronto
area,
including
the
Mississauga
Chinese
Christian
Church,
the
Malaysian
-
Singapore
Bible
Church,
the
Mississauga
Chinese
Baptist
Church,
the
Chinese
Presbyterian
Church
and
the
Bethany
Bible
Chapel.
In
1992,
he
ministered
principally
to
the
Jamaican
and
Spanish
congregations
at
Bethany
Bible
Chapel
in
Toronto.
He
led
the
Spanish
congregation,
bi-weekly
worship
services
and
Bible
and
prayer
meetings
for
the
Spanish
Congregation,
preached
once
a
month,
did
spiritual
counselling
and
met
with
congregation
members
whom
he
hoped
to
develop
as
leaders.
In
my
view
he
was
ministering
to
a
congregation
in
the
sense
in
which
I
interpreted
the
term
in
the
Miller
(96-4848(IT)G),
McGorman
(86-
355(IT)O)
and
Kraft
(89-1548(IT)O)
cases.
In
light
of
this
conclusion
I
need
not
deal
with
the
alternative
argument
that
Mr.
Seim
was
engaged
in
full
time
administrative
work.
Reverend
Willi
Kurtz
It
is
conceded
that
Reverend
Willi
Kurtz
is
a
member
of
the
Baptist
clergy.
He
was
employed
by
Intercom
(Intertribal
Christian
Communiation),
an
organization
concerned
with
the
spiritual
life
of
native
peoples.
He
attended
at
a
number
of
native
churches
in
Manitoba
where
he
preached
and
did
counselling.
He
led
religious
services
including
regular
Sunday
worship
services.
In
my
view,
he
was
ministering
to
a
congregation
in
the
sense
in
which
I
have
interpreted
that
expression
earlier.
Timothy
J.
Nielsen
Mr.
Nielsen
is,
as
I
have
found
earlier,
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination.
There
can
be
no
question
that
he
was
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service.
The
fact
that
he
did
a
small
amount
of
preaching
or
other
pastoral
work
does
not
detract
from
this
conclusion.
He
was
commended
to
work
with
Intercom
by
Meadowvale
Gospel
Chapel
in
Illinois
but
he
was
not
appointed
by
that
denomination
to
work
with
Intercom.
He
was
commended
by
that
denomination
to
work
with
native
peoples.
He
was
appointed
by
Intercom.
It
was
not
contended
that
Intercom
was
a
religious
order.
I
do
not
think
that
Mr.
Nielsen
meets
the
function
test
because
the
administrative
service
performed
by
him
was
not
“by
appointment
of
a
religious
denomination”.
There
is
an
insufficient
nexus
between
his
religious
denomination
and
his
appointment
to
do
administrative
work
by
Intercom.
Accordingly,
Mr.
Nielsen’s
appeals
are
dismissed.
Reverend
George
McPeek
It
is
conceded
that
Reverend
George
McPeek
is
a
member
of
the
clergy.
He
did
not
testify,
having
moved
to
the
United
States.
There
is
some
evidence
that
he
did
some
management
work
with
Intercom
and
some
preaching
in
native
churches
and
some
counselling
but
the
evidence
is
simply
insufficient
for
me
to
conclude
that
he
was
ministering
to
a
congregation.
All
of
the
evidence
relating
to
Reverend
McPeek
was
put
in
by
another
witness
and
while
I,
of
course,
do
not
doubt
the
good
faith
and
veracity
of
the
witness
it
is
not
the
best
evidence
and
it
is
insufficient
for
me
to
conclude
that
this
appellant
has
met
the
requisite
onus
of
proof.
The
fact
that
I
cannot,
on
the
evidence,
find
in
Reverend
MCPeek’s
favour
does
not
of
course
detract
from
my
finding
that
as
General
Director
and
founder
of
Intercom
he
has
performed
a
most
praiseworthy
service.
Reverend
McPeek’s
appeals
are
therefore
dismissed.
The
appeals
of
Messrs.
Kraft,
Baker,
Seim
and
Kurtz
are
allowed.
I
shall
defer
dealing
with
costs
until
I
have
received
representations
on
all
of
the
cases
from
counsel.
Appeals
by
Kr,
B,
S
and
Ku
allowed;
appeals
by
N
and
M
dismissed.
Email this Content