Bowman
T.C.J.:
This
group
of
cases
was
part
of
a
series
of
cases
heard
in
the
spring,
summer
and
fall
of
1998
having
to
do
with
claims
under
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
central
issue
in
this
group
of
cases
is
whether
an
organization
known
as
Christian
Horizons
is
a
“religious
order”
within
the
meaning
of
that
provision
and,
if
so,
whether
the
appellants
are
members
of
that
order.
A
second
issue,
which
arises
in
the
case
of
Reverend
Churchman
and
Reverend
Shantz,
is
whether
these
two
persons,
who,
it
is
conceded,
are
clergymen,
are
ministering
to
or
in
charge
of
a
congregation.
So
far
as
Reverend
Churchman
is
concerned
it
is
also
conceded
that
he
is
engaged
in
full
time
administrative
service.
Accordingly
if
it
is
determined
that
he
has
been
appointed
to
that
service
by
a
religious
order,
the
question
whether
he
is
in
charge
of
or
ministering
to
a
congregation
need
not
be
considered.
Of
the
other
appellants
in
this
group,
it
is
conceded
that
Murray
Mackenzie,
Donovan
E.
Janzen
and
Ed
Sider
were
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service.
The
function
of
the
others
remains
in
issue,
although
it
is
conceded
that
“each
of
the
appellants
that
was
employed
by
Christian
Horizons
had,
as
part
of
their
job
description,
duties
that
were
administrative
in
nature,
but
it
is
not
accepted
that
their
duties
were
exclusively
administrative
in
nature.”
I
shall
turn
first
to
the
issue
that
is
central
to
all
of
the
appeals,
whether
Christian
Horizons
is
a
religious
order.
Christian
Horizons
was
incorporated
in
1965
under
the
name
Ontario
Christian
Association
for
Exceptional
Children
as
a
non-profit
corporation
without
share
capital
under
the
Corporations
Act
(Ontario)
and
at
all
material
times
was
a
registered
charity
under
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Subsequently,
it
changed
its
name
to
Christian
Horizons.
Its
corporate
objects
are
as
follows:
(a)
To
search
out
and
provide
information
relevant
to
understanding
and
helping
the
exceptional
child;
to
assist
the
exceptional
child
in
finding
a
satisfying
and
purposeful
place
in
society;
to
promote
the
physical,
social,
intellectual
and
spiritual
welfare
of
the
exceptional
child;
to
provide
Christian
fellowship
for
parents
and
other
persons
interested
in
the
welfare
of
the
exceptional
child;
to
encourage
and
assist
interested
churches
in
the
development
of
a
special
Christian
education
programme
for
the
exceptional
child;
to
promote
the
establishment
of
programme
of
specialized
facilities
such
as
clinics,
camps,
schools,
retreats
and
homes
for
developing
the
full
potential
of
the
exceptional
child
and
preparing
him
to
lead
a
happy,
meaningful
and
useful
life;
and
(b)
Subject
to
The
Charitable
Gifts
Act
and
the
Mortmain
and
Charitable
Uses
Act,
to
receive
subscriptions
and
donations
for
the
purpose
of
securing
funds
to
carry
on
the
work
of
the
Corporation.
“Exceptional”
in
these
letters
patent
means
mentally
handicapped
or,
to
use
a
term
that
was
used
by
many
of
the
witnesses
and
is
more
sensitive
and
acceptable
today,
developmentally
challenged.
Christian
Horizons
describes
itself
as
a
“trans-denominational
evangelical
ministry
serving
people
with
exceptional
needs”.
By
trans-denominational
is
meant
that
it
is
affiliated
with
no
denomination,
as
compared
to
“inter-denominational”
which
indicates
an
affiliation
with
a
number
of
denominations.
Its
mission
statement,
as
set
out
in
the
pamphlet
“Presenting
Christian
Horizons”
is
as
follows:
Mission
Statement
As
Christians
committed
to
the
doctrinal
statement
of
Christian
Horizons,
we
seek
to
address
our
objectives
as
articulated
at
incorporation
by:
l.
Mobilizing
the
Evangelical
Christian
Community
to
provide
for
the
needs
of
people
who,
due
to
their
unique
development,
require
extraordinary
support/care.
2.
Meeting
the
needs
of
people
(unserved
in
the
community
or
transferring
from
centralized
facilities)
who
request
our
help
either
by
themselves
or
through
a
representative.
3.
Providing
service
and
care
in
meeting
the
needs
of
developmentally
disabled
people
that
honours
Jesus
Christ,
exhibiting
His
care
and
integrity.
Its
objectives
are
said
to
be
the
following:
Objectives
1.
CHRISTIAN
Fellowship
for
parents,
persons,
interested
in
the
advancement
and
welfare
of
the
person
with
exceptional
needs.
2.
Research
and
providing
relevant
information
assisting
the
mentally
disabled
person.
3.
Assist
persons
to
find
a
satisfying
and
purposeful
place
in
society.
4.
Promoting
the
enhancement
of
all
persons,
physically,
socially,
mentally
and
spiritually.
5.
Assisting
churches
in
developing
special
educational
programs.
6.
Establishing,
programming
within
specialized
facilities,
group
homes,
camps,
schools
to
help
each
person
have
a
happy
meaningful
life.
The
brochure
also
invites
parents,
individuals
and
churches
to
become
members
of
Christian
Horizons.
To
become
a
member
one
must
complete
a
membership
application
and
forward
a
membership
fee.
Persons
wishing
to
become
members
are
required
to
subscribe
to
the
following
doctrinal
statement:
Doctrinal
Statement
As
Christians,
possessing
a
personal
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
as
Lord
and
Saviour,
we
wish
to
further
the
aims
of
Christian
Horizons
in
a
true
spirit
of
Love
and
compassion,
combined
with
a
genuine
concern
for
the
needs
of
those
whom
we
will
serve
seeking
to
do
all
for
the
glory
of
God.
The
members
of
Christian
Horizons
subscribe
to
the
following
doctrinal
statement:
I.
The
Holy
Scriptures
as
originally
given
by
God
are
divinely
inspired,
infallible,
entirely
trustworthy
and
the
only
supreme
authority
in
all
matters
of
faith
and
conduct.
2.
One
God
eternally
existent
in
three
Persons:
Father,
Son
and
Holy
Spirit.
3.
Our
Lord
Jesus
Christ,
God
manifest
in
the
flesh
-
His
virgin
birth,
His
sinless
human
life,
His
bodily
resurrection,
His
divine
miracles,
His
ascension,
His
mediatorial
work,
and
His
personal
return
in
power
and
glory.
4.
The
salvation
of
lost
and
sinful
man
through
the
shed
blood
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
and
regeneration
by
the
Holy
Spirit
by
faith
apart
from
works.
5.
The
Holy
Spirit
by
whose
indwelling
the
believer
is
enabled
to
live
a
holy
life
to
witness
and
work
for
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ.
6.
The
resurrection
of
both
the
saved
and
the
lost;
they
that
are
saved
unto
the
resurrection
of
Life,
and
they
that
are
lost
unto
the
resurrection
of
damnation.
7.
The
unity
of
spirit
of
all
true
believers,
the
Church,
the
Body
of
Christ.
I
mention
these
“corporate”
members
of
which
there
are
about
850
because
there
is
an
issue
concerning
who
is
a
member
of
Christian
Horizons.
The
position
of
the
appellants
is
that
they,
as
employees
of
Christian
Horizons,
are
“members”
of
a
religious
order,
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(1)(c).
None
of
the
corporate
members
is
claiming
the
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1)(c)
as
members
of
a
religious
order,
Christian
Horizons.
This
question
will
be
dealt
with
later.
At
the
present
time
Christian
Horizons
operates
about
115
group
homes
(“Horizon
Houses”)
throughout
Ontario,
where
the
needs
of
about
850
developmentally
challenged
adults
and
children
are
served.
It
also
provides
support
and
assistance
to
persons
who
are
capable
of
living
independently,
with
staff
support,
in
an
apartment
setting.
It
also
provides
vocational
habitation
services
and
operates
a
summer
camp
in
southern
Ontario
for
developmentally
challenged
children.
The
operation
of
Horizons
Houses
appears
to
be
the
largest
aspect
of
the
organization’s
operations.
Its
current
budget
is
about
$36,000,000
of
which
about
$1,000,000
comes
from
donations
and
membership
fees
from
supporting
individuals,
churches
and
organizations
and
the
balance
from
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
Community
and
Social
Services.
In
some
cases
a
fee
is
charged
out
of
the
individual’s
family
benefit
allowance.
Christian
Horizons
has
about
1,500
staff
members,
most
of
whom
are
engaged
in
direct
care
and
not
in
administration.
All
staff
members
are
required
to
subscribe
to
the
doctrinal
statement
set
out
above.
In
addition,
as
part
of
the
employment
contract
signed
by
Chris-
tian
Horizons
as
employer
and
the
employee,
the
employee
must
agree
to
adhere
to
the
following
moral,
religious
and
lifestyle
guidelines.
Appendix
“D”
to
Christian
Horizons
Employment
Contract
Personal
Lifestyle
and
Morality
Standards
Expected
of
Staff
Staff
conduct
should
comply
with
Christian
Horizons’
policies
where
stated,
endorse
the
Christian
commitment
of
the
membership
and
be
a
positive
example
for
the
people
we
serve.
Each
staff
person
teaches
by
example,
therefore
they
may
not
use
tobacco,
or
alcoholic
beverages
or
be
perceived
as
endorsing
their
use,
while
being
observed
by
our
clients.
Further,
such
conduct
is
strongly
discouraged
for
the
health
and
wellbeing
of
the
staff.
Similarly,
we
hold
life
to
be
sacred
and
the
family
model
as
endorsed
by
Jesus
as
fundamental.
While
not
limiting
examples
in
inappropriate
behaviour
deemed
to
be
contrary
to
the
teaching
of
Jesus
and
His
followers
as
recorded
in
the
New
Testament,
Christian
Horizons
does
reject
conduct
such
as:
1.
extra
marital
sexual
relationships
(adultery)
2.
pre-marital
sexual
relationships
(fornication)
3.
reading
or
viewing
of
pornographic
material
4.
homosexual
relationships
5.
theft,
fraud
6.
physical
aggression
7.
abusive
behaviour
8.
Sexual
assault/harassment
9.
lying
and
deceit
10.
the
use
of
illicit
drugs
as
being
incompatible
with
effective
Christian
counselling
ideals,
standards
and
values.
It
may
be
observed
that
many
(but
certainly
not
all)
of
these
precepts
are
ones
to
which
persons
of
a
variety
of
religious
persuasions
(and,
indeed,
many
persons
of
no
religious
convictions)
would
subscribe.
Believing
in
and
leading
a
virtuous,
exemplary
and
even
puritanical
life
is
not
the
exclusive
preserve
of
evangelical
Christians.
What
is
unusual
is
that
an
agreement
to
observe
such
standards
as
well
as
the
signing
of
an
evangelical
doctrinal
statement
should
form
part
of
a
contract
of
employment.
Employees
of
Christian
Horizons
are
free
to
leave
their
employment,
and
they
may
be
dismissed
if
their
work,
lifestyle
or
behaviour
are
unsuitable.
The
pay
scale
for
employees
of
Christian
Horizons
is
based
upon
a
structure
that
takes
into
account
experience,
responsibility,
and
seniority.
It
was
determined
by
comparison
with
the
pay
scale
in
similar
secular
organi
zations
doing
the
same
type
of
work.
At
the
lower
levels
of
remuneration
the
pay
scale
is
roughly
comparable
to
that
of
other
similar
organizations.
At
the
upper
levels
of
administration
it
is
up
to
30%
less
than
that
which
prevails
in
a
similar
employment
in
comparable
non-religious
organizations.
The
reason
given
for
this
was
that
by
paying
the
staff
lower
salaries
there
was
more
money
to
devote
to
serving
the
handicapped
and
possibly
increasing
the
number
of
persons
helped.
One
point
stands
out.
The
evangelical
Christian
influence
permeates
this
organization.
Whether
or
not
Christian
Horizons
is
an
“order”,
it
is
unquestionably
religious.
An
example
of
this,
in
addition
to
the
passages
quoted
above,
is
the
welcoming
letter
sent
by
the
Executive
Director,
Noel
A.
Churchman,
to
new
employees:
Welcome
to
Christian
Horizons!
I
trust
that
you
will
be
empowered
by
the
Holy
Spirit
as
you
invest
the
talents
God
has
entrusted
to
you.
Christian
Horizons
is
a
collection
of
Christians
worshipping
God
by
living
and
working
in
a
manner
that
magnifies
His
name.
We
have
all
declared
that
we
accept
the
scriptures
as
the
final
authority
in
all
matters
pertaining
to
our
personal
faith
and
conduct
and
that
Jesus
Christ
is
our
sole
trust
for
salvation.
At
the
outset
I
should
note
a
few
significant
considerations:
|
l.
|
God
works
in
a
variety
of
ways.
Sometimes
He
performs
His
perfecting
|
|
work
through
adversity
(James
1).
May
God
grant
us
the
perspective
|
|
that
enables
us
to
respond
appropriately
when
under
stress,
and
to
be
|
|
sensitive
to
the
challenges
facing
our
co-workers
and
the
people
we
|
|
serve.
|
|
2.
|
Working
at
Christian
Horizons
does
not
mean
we
escape
problems.
Sur
|
|
prisingly
it
is
often
just
another
step
in
being
a
disciple
of
Christ
who
|
|
told
us
we
may
be
asked
to
bear
a
cross.
(A
cross
is
always
unfair).
|
|
3,
|
It
is
imperative
that
we
all
worship
with
God’s
people
at
a
home
church.
|
|
You
and
I
will
need
teaching,
fellowship,
and
encouragement
to
remain
|
|
effective.
Unless
we
are
spiritually
well,
our
work
becomes
drudgery
|
|
and
God’s
life-changing
power
is
absent
no
matter
how
correct
our
|
|
methodology
is.
|
We
serve
together
and
come
to
this
work
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds,
various
levels
of
spiritual
maturity
and
with
different
personal
challenges
in
our
home
life.
May
God
allow
us
to
be
sensitive
to
the
needs
of
each
other
so
that
we
can
support
each
other
without
hoping
to
develop
carbon
copies
of
ourselves,
either
with
our
fellow
staff
members
or
the
people
we
are
called
to
serve.
Together
in
Royal
Service
Noel
Churchman
Executive
Director
I
come
then
to
the
first
question:
is
Christian
Horizons
an
“order”?
Before
one
can
attempt
to
answer
that
question
one
must
first
determine
what
is
the
organization
that
purports
to
be
an
order.
Christian
Horizons,
the
legal
entity,
is
a
corporation
and
it
is
the
corporate
entity
that
employs
the
persons
who
claim
to
be
members
of
an
order.
I
do
not
think
that
the
corporation,
in
itself,
can
be
an
order.
An
order,
whatever
else
it
may
be,
is
a
body
or
group
of
persons
with
certain
characteristics.
The
corporation
provides
the
framework
or
structure
within
which
the
“order”,
if
that
is
what
it
is,
operates.
The
order
is
the
collectivity
of
persons
sharing
these
characteristics
and
goals.
“Christian
Horizons”
is
also
the
name
that
is
properly
applied
to
that
collectivity.
The
second
step
in
the
analysis
is
this:
the
employees,
who
claim
to
be
members
of
an
order,
are
in
fact
bound
to
the
corporation
by
contracts
of
employment.
Is
this
fact
inconsistent:
(a)
with
their
being
members
of
the
collectivity
as
distinct
from
the
corporation,
or
(b)
with
that
collectivity
being
an
order?
I
see
no
inconsistency.
There
is
no
reason
in
principle
why
membership
in
a
collectivity
of
persons
sharing
the
same
beliefs,
standards
and
objectives
cannot
exist
at
the
same
time
as
the
member
holds
an
office
or
employment
with
the
corporate
structure
that
forms
the
framework
within
which
the
collectivity
operates.
Indeed,
paragraph
8(1)(c)
is
premised
upon
the
members
of
an
order
holding
an
office
or
employment
and
deriving
income
from
it.
There
remains,
then,
only
the
question
whether
Christian
Horizons,
the
collectivity,
is
an
order.
In
McGorman
and
Miller,
I
set
out
a
number
of
characteristics
that
I
consider
to
be
indicative
of
a
religious
order.
I
did
not
intend
them
to
be
inflexible
criteria,
but
they
were,
I
believe,
consistent
with
the
evidence
that
I
heard
and
the
various
religious
authorities
and
dictionaries
to
which
I
was
referred.
I
do
not
accept
that
there
must
be
vows
of
perpetual
poverty,
chastity
and
obedience
as
is
characteristic
of
many
well-
known
Roman
Catholic
orders
such
as
the
Society
of
Jesus
or
the
Franciscan
Order.
It
was
argued
that
if
a
vow
of
perpetual
poverty
(which
entails
paying
the
members’
income
to
the
order)
were
a
prerequisite
of
being
a
member
of
a
religious
order,
paragraph
8(1)(c)
would
be
inapplicable
to
such
members
because
an
amount
equal
to
his
or
her
earned
income
(as
defined
in
section
63)
would
be
deductible
in
any
event
under
subsection
110(2).
Considerable
argument
was
advanced
by
counsel
for
all
parties
on
this
point,
and,
in
particular,
on
the
relation
between
paragraph
8(1)(c)
and
subsection
110(2)
in
the
Koop
et
al.
group
of
cases.
It
is
unnecessary
for
any
disposition
of
these
appeals
that
I
deal
at
length
with
the
interaction
of
these
two
provisions,
or
the
manner,
if
any,
in
which
one
provision
may
affect
the
interpretation
of
the
other.
It
should
be
observed,
however,
that
if,
as
the
respondent
contends,
implicit
in
the
words
“religious
order”
in
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
is
the
concept
of
a
vow
of
perpetual
poverty,
the
words
“has,
as
such,
taken
a
vow
of
perpetual
poverty,”
would
be
superfluous
in
subsection
110(2).
Since
it
is
to
be
presumed
that
Parliament
did
not
intend
a
tautology
(Hill
v.
William
Hill
(Park
Lane)
Ltd.,
[1949]
A.C.
530
(U.K.
H.L.),
at
546-547;
Driedger
on
the
Construction
of
Statutes,
3rd
edition
(Sullivan)
159-160),
the
clear
inference
from
the
presence
of
the
additional
words
in
subsection
110(2)
and
their
absence
in
paragraph
8(1)(c)
is
that
those
words
should
not
be
read
into
paragraph
8(1)(c)
and
that
the
words
“religious
order”
by
themselves
do
not
imply
or
require
a
vow
of
perpetual
poverty.
I
mention
this
only
as
a
collateral
observation.
My
conclusion
that
such
a
vow
is
not
essential
to
a
religious
order
was
reached
independently
of
subsection
110(2)
and
I
dealt
with
that
provision
only
because
counsel
for
both
the
appellants
and
the
respondent
directed
argument
to
it.
The
characteristics
of
a
religious
order,
which
I
set
out
in
McGorman
and
Miller
were
the
following:
[46]
While
I
do
not
intend
these
criteria
to
be
inflexible,
I
should
think
that
the
following
characteristics
would
be
indicative
of
a
religious
order
as
that
expression
is
used
in
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act:
(1)
The
purpose
of
the
organization
should
be
primarily
religious.
By
this
I
do
not
imply
that
it
can
have
no
other
objects
within
the
overall
context
of
that
religious
purpose
such
as
education,
the
relief
of
poverty,
or
the
alleviation
of
social
ills
and
suffering.
Indeed,
to
exclude
religious
organizations
from
the
definition
of
religious
order
on
the
ground
that
they
had
objects
that
went
beyond
preaching
the
gospel
and
prayer
and
meditation
and
extended
to
works
beneficial
to
humanity
such
as
running
hospitals,
or
helping
the
poor
and
homeless,
is
historically
incorrect.
scriptually
wrong,
at
least
in
the
context
of
Christian
orders,
(see
James
2:20-26)
and,
as
a
practical
matter,
unreasonable
and
unworkable.
The
propagation
of
the
gospel
has
traditionally
been
by
example,
good
works
and
ministering
to
people’s
needs,
not
by
merely
preaching
to
them.
(2)
The
members
must
agree
to
adhere
to
and
in
fact
adhere
to
a
strict
moral
and
spiritual
regime
of
self-sacrifice
and
dedication
to
the
goals
of
the
organization
to
the
detriment
of
their
own
material
well
being.
(3)
The
commitment
of
the
members
should
be
full-time
and
of
a
long-term
nature.
In
some
cases
it
may
be
for
life,
but
this
is
not
essential.
It
is
important
that
it
not
be
short
term,
temporary
or
part-time.
(4)
The
spiritual
and
moral
discipline
and
regime
under
which
the
members
live
must
be
markedly
stricter
than
that
to
which
the
lay
church
members
are
expected
to
adhere.
(5)
Admission
to
the
order
must
be
in
accordance
with
strict
standards
of
spiritual
and
personal
suitability.
(6)
There
should
generally
be
a
sense
of
communality.
Does
Christian
Horizons
fall
within
these
criteria?
In
my
view
it
does,
although
there
are
some
differences
from
SIM
or
the
Canadian
Baptist
Overseas
Mission
Board.
One
difference
is
the
structured
pay
scale
for
the
employees
of
Christian
Horizons.
Their
remuneration,
particularly
in
the
case
of
the
senior
administrators,
is
appreciably
less
than
that
paid
to
senior
employees
of
non-religious
institutions
taking
care
of
mentally
handicapped
persons.
In
the
case
of
religious
orders
such
as
CBOMB
and
SIM
no
such
differentiation
in
salary
levels
exists.
The
employees
are,
regardless
of
qualification,
responsibility
or
seniority,
paid
only
enough
to
satisfy
their
basic
needs.
A
second
difference
is
that
the
homes
for
handicapped
persons
operated
by
Christian
Horizons
are
to
a
significant
degree
funded
by
the
Government
of
Ontario.
I
do
not
regard
this
as
determinative.
Hospitals
and
schools
run
by
Roman
Catholic
religious
orders
are
funded
in
part
by
the
government
without
any
suggestion
that
for
that
reason
alone
they
cease
to
be
religious
orders.
Moreover,
the
Ontario
Ministry
of
Community
and
Social
Services
audits
the
administration
of
the
homes
run
by
Christian
Horizons
and
that
ministry
sets
guidelines
and
standards.
This
is
undoubtedly
true
of
hospitals
operated
by
other
religious
orders.
Whether
an
organization
is
a
religious
order
depends
upon
all
of
the
facts.
No
factor
predominates
and
each
must
be
assigned
its
proper
weight
in
the
context
of
all
of
the
evidence.
In
my
view,
the
six
criteria
which
I
set
out
above
have
been
met.
Although
I
have
set
out
a
number
of
factors
which
distinguish
it
from
the
more
obvious
religious
orders
such
as
CBOMB
and
SIM,
I
do
not
think
that
these
factors
are
sufficient
to
prevent
Christian
Horizons
from
being
a
religious
order.
They
are
not
factors
that
go
to
the
essence
of
what
a
religious
order
is.
If
there
were
any
doubt
about
the
matter,
I
would
consider
the
administrative
practice
to
tip
the
scales
in
the
appellants’
favour,
in
light
of
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Harel
v.
Quebec
(Deputy
Minister
of
Revenue)
(1977),
[1978]
1
S.C.R.
851
(S.C.C.),
at
859,
quoted
in
McGorman
and
Miller.
The
Department
of
National
Revenue
has
since
1986
and
during
all
of
the
years
in
question
listed
Christian
Horizons
as
a
religious
order.
This
was
not
an
inadvertent
conclusion.
I
shall
not
quote
the
correspondence
between
Mr.
Churchman
and
Mr.
Brooks,
a
senior
and
highly
intelligent
and
articulate
official
of
the
Department
of
National
Revenue,
relating
to
the
question,
in
which
Mr.
Brooks
agreed
that
Christian
Horizons
was
a
religious
order.
The
exchange
of
letters
demonstrates
the
care
that
went
into
that
decision.
I
do
not
propose
to
comment
in
detail
on
the
extensive
argument
advanced
by
counsel
for
the
appellants
that
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
had
agreed
with
Reverend
Churchman
that
Christian
Horizons
was
a
religious
order,
and
that
the
members
of
Christian
Horizons
had
relied
upon
it
to
their
detriment.
That
there
was
such
an
agreement
upon
which
the
appellants
relied
is
undeniable,
and
in
Consoltex
Inc.
v.
R.
(1997),
97
D.T.C.
724
(T.C.C.),
the
court
commented
on
the
undesirable
state
of
affairs
brought
about
by
the
Department’s
reneging
on
its
agreements.
It
is,
however,
unnecessary
to
raise
again
that
troublesome
issue,
or
the
question
of
estoppel
(see
Goldstein
v.
R.
(1995),
96
D.T.C.
1029
(T.C.C.)).
It
is
sufficient
to
say
that
in
my
view
the
Department’s
administrative
practice
in
treating
Christian
Horizons
as
a
religious
order
is
entirely
correct.
I
hold
therefore
that
Christian
Horizons
is
a
religious
order
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Income
tax
Act.
Having
concluded
that
Christian
Horizons
is
a
religious
order
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
8(1)(c),
I
turn
now
to
the
position
of
the
individual
appellants.
It
is
conceded
that
Reverend
Noel
A.
Churchman
is
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service
as
Executive
Director
of
Christian
Horizons.
The
same
concession
is
made
with
respect
to
Murray
MacKenzie,
Director
of
Finance,
Donovan
E.
Janzen,
Director
of
Human
Resources
as
well
as
Director
of
Administrative
Services
and
Ed
Sider,
Director
of
Program
Services.
It
is
further
conceded
that
Reverend
Churchman
and
Reverend
J.
Allan
Shantz
are
members
of
the
clergy.
The
issue
therefore
with
respect
to
Reverend
Churchman
and
the
others
is
whether
their
engagement
with
Christian
Horizons
was
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order.
It
follows
from
my
conclusion
above
that
their
employ-
ment
with
Christian
Horizons
was
not
inconsistent
with
their
being
a
member
of
that
order.
It
seems
obvious
that
their
engagement
in
administrative
service
was
by
appointment
of
Christian
Horizons.
I
am
aware
of
the
argument
that
technically
the
employment
is
with
Christian
Horizons,
the
corporate
entity,
and
so
it
might
be
argued
that
the
appointment
is
by
the
corporate
entity
and
not
by
the
collectivity
constituting
the
order.
Such
distinctions
are,
to
use
the
words
of
Dickson
J.
(as
he
then
was)
in
Nowegijick
v.
R.
(1983),
83
D.T.C.
5041
(S.C.C.),
at
5045
in
a
different
context,
“...
too
fine
a
distinction
for
my
liking.”
It
is
therefore
not
necessary
to
consider
the
alternative
argument
that
Reverend
Churchman
was
ministering
to
a
congregation.
With
respect
to
Messrs.
Mackenzie,
Janzen
and
Sider,
I
find
that
they
are
members
of
a
religious
order
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
that
religious
order.
So
far
as
Reverend
Shantz
is
concerned,
the
question
is
whether
he
is
ministering
to
a
congregation.
His
function
as
minister
at
large
to
Christian
Horizons
involved
ministering
to
families
of
the
residents
of
the
Christian
Horizons
homes,
the
staff
members
of
Christian
Horizons,
the
residents
of
the
homes
and
families
of
prospective
residents.
This
included
daily
devo-
tionals,
spiritual
counselling
and
prayer,
organizing
and
leading
worship
services
at
staff
meetings
and
retreats.
His
ministering
covered
a
broad
range
of
pastoral
activities,
preaching,
counselling
and
participating
in
Sunday
worship
services.
I
must
confess
that
I
am
at
a
complete
loss
to
understand
on
what
possible
basis
it
can
be
said
that
Reverend
Shantz,
whose
role
was
substantially
that
of
chaplain
to
the
residents,
staff
and
families
of
Christian
Horizons,
was
not
ministering
to
a
congregation.
The
denial
of
the
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
is
not
even
consistent
with
the
Department’s
own
published
and
established
administrative
practices.
It
seems
that
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
has
taken
the
McRae
decision
as
a
carte
blanche
rationale
for
its
reversal
of
all
of
its
long
standing
and
sensible
policies
and
its
denial
of
even
the
most
obvious
of
cases.
This
group
of
cases
included
a
number
of
other
members
of
Christian
Horizons
who
claimed
the
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1)(c)
on
the
basis
that
they
were
engaged
exclusively
in
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order.
Not
all
of
them
testified
and
a
number
of
them
have
left
Christian
Horizons.
Michael
Alemu,
Director
of
Program
Development,
testified
and
I
find
that
he
was
engaged
full
time
exclusively
in
administrative
services.
Robert
B.
Grimes
and
Douglas
Sewell,
two
managers,
testified
and
described
generally
their
functions
as
administrators.
I
find
that
they
have
made
out
a
prima
facie
case
that
they
were
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service.
That
prima
facie
case
has
not
been
rebutted
(see
Hickman
Motors
Ltd.
v.
R.
(1997),
97
D.T.C.
5363
(S.C.C.)
at
page
5376.)
The
following
members
of
Christian
Horizons
did
not
testify:
Carmen
Chevalier
(Regional
Manager);
Michael
Condran
(Regional
Manager);
Barry
Crawford
(Regional
Manager);
Sharon
Dam
(Regional
Manager);
Wilfred
Eagleson
(Regional
Manager);
Lancelot
Leach
(Regional
Manager);
Katherine
S.
Loveys
(Senior
Director);
Martha
Marr
(Senior
Director);
M.
Wayne
Michalski
(Comptroller);
Lee
Mitchell
(Director
of
Camping
Ministries);
Irene
Moore
(Senior
Director);
Elisabeth
Nowak
(Senior
Director);
Arthur
H.
Rasmusson
(Senior
Director);
Herbert
Robbins
(Office
Manager);
Mary
Roberts
(Regional
Manager);
Anita
Steiginga
(Regional
Manager);
Gary
Weber
(Manager
of
the
Conference
Centre).
Three
of
the
witnesses
described
the
work
of
the
regional
managers
and
others
who
did
not
testify.
I
accept
that
their
work
was
of
an
administrative
nature.
I
acknowledge
that
their
failure
to
testify
was
because
of
the
money
it
would
cost
and
the
time
it
would
add
to
an
already
lengthy
trial.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
invited
me
to
draw
an
adverse
inference
from
their
failure
to
testify.
I
decline
to
do
so.
Rather,
I
draw
no
inference.
Generally
an
adverse
inference
may
be
drawn
from
the
failure
of
a
witness
or
party
to
testify
where
that
person
had
evidence
that
could
have
supported
a
particular
position
advanced
and
it
may
reasonably
be
inferred
that
his
or
her
failure
to
testify
was
attributable
to
an
ulterior
purpose,
such,
for
example,
as
the
possibility
that
the
person
might
have
had
information
that
was
detrimental
to
the
case
being
advanced.
I
can
discern
no
basis
for
drawing
such
an
inference
here.
The
work
of
the
parties
who
did
not
testify
was
described
by
very
credible
witnesses
—
Messrs.
Churchman,
Alemu,
Sewell,
Grimes
and
Sider
—
and
their
senior
and
responsible
managerial
functions
are
set
out
in
their
detailed
job
descriptions.
It
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
basic
reason
for
the
disallowance
of
their
claims
appears
not
to
have
been
that
they
were
not
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service,
but
rather
that
Christian
Horizons
was
not
a
religious
order.
There
is
nothing
in
the
evidence
to
suggest
that
if
they
were
members
of
a
religious
order
and
were
appointed
to
their
positions
by
that
order,
they
were
not
engaged
in
that
work
exclusively
and
full
time.
The
evidence
established
in
my
view
that
they
were
so
engaged
by
appointment
of
Christian
Horizons.
I
find
therefore
that
they
were
members
of
a
religious
order,
that
they
were
appointed
to
their
respective
positions
by
that
religious
order
and
that
they
were
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service.
In
the
result,
the
appeals
of
all
of
the
members
of
Christian
Horizons
who
are
appellants
in
this
group
of
cases
are
allowed
and
the
assessments
are
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
they
are
entitled
to
the
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Act.
The
matter
of
costs
will
be
deferred
in
these
cases
as
in
the
other
groups,
until
I
have
received
representations
from
counsel
for
all
parties.
Appeals
allowed.
Email this Content