Bowman
T
.
C.J.:
This
is
the
last
group
of
appeals
heard
in
the
spring,
summer
and
fall
of
1998
having
to
do
with
claims
for
a
deduction
under
paragraph
8(1)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
central
issue
is
whether
two
organizations,
Youth
For
Christ
and
The
Navigators
of
Canada
are
religious
orders.
Sherryl
Koop,
Brenda
Rushton
and
Gilbert
Klassen
are
members
of
Youth
For
Christ
Society.
The
others
belong
to
The
Navigators.
I
shall
begin
with
the
question
of
religious
order.
It
is
unnecessary
for
me
to
set
out
in
detail
the
various
arguments
that
were
advanced
in
the
earlier
cases
which
I
heard,
or
the
reasons
that
I
expressed
for
the
conclusions
that
I
reached.
It
is
sufficient
to
summarize
them.
What
is
clear
from
evidence
of
experts,
as
well
as
the
authorities
that
were
adduced
in
evidence,
is
that
ecclesiastical
concepts,
and
in
particular
the
concept
of
religious
order,
are
far
richer,
more
varied,
and
permutable
than
the
respondent
is
prepared
to
accept,
and
certainly
than
are
set
out
in
the
obiter
dicta
in
the
McRae
case
[Zylstra
Estate
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(1994),
94
D.T.C.
6687
(Fed.
T.D.)],
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
has
sought
to
use
as
a
justification
for
restricting
the
term
religious
order
to
those
in
which
vows
of
poverty,
chastity
and
obedience
are
required.
In
the
Miller
and
McGorman
cases
[McGorman
v.
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
(February
26,
1999),
Doc.
86-355(IT)O,
96-4848(IT)G
(T.C.C.)]
I
set
out
a
number
of
guidelines
that
I
found
useful
in
determining
whether
a
religious
organization
was
a
religious
order.
They
were
the
following:
(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,
scripturally
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
longterm
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.
I
based
these
guidelines,
which
I
formulated
for
my
own
guidance
in
deciding
all
of
the
cases
involving
religious
orders,
on
the
expert
testimony
and
the
numerous
religious
authorities
and
texts
which
were
put
in
evidence.
Even
the
Roman
Catholic
authorities,
which
counsel
for
the
respondent
urged
me
to
treat
as
a
model
or
template,
support
the
view
that
new
forms
of
religious
orders
are
developing,
and
patterns
of
consecrated
life
and
secular
institutes
which
do
not
conform
to
traditional
forms
(for
example
ancient
orders
such
as
the
Jesuits
or
the
Franciscans)
are
emerging
and
developing.
The
conclusion
to
be
drawn
from
the
authorities,
including
the
Roman
Catholic
authorities,
is
that
religious
orders
can
encompass
interfaith
orders,
orders
that
are
family
oriented,
and
orders
that
do
not
require
vows
of
chastity,
poverty
and
obedience.
Nonetheless,
such
orders
do
require
significant
self-sacrifice,
a
dedication
that
transcends
that
of
an
ordinary
churchgoer
and
an
ardent
commitment
to
the
cause
of
the
particular
order.
Youth
For
Christ
is
such
an
order
and
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
has
consistently
and
in
my
view
correctly
treated
it
as
a
religious
order.
Their
credentialled
staff
members
are
in
my
view
ministers,
although
that
is
not
essential
to
the
claim.
Credentialling
by
Youth
For
Christ
is
a
ceremony
of
considerable
solemnity
and
takes
place
only
after
a
vigorous
and
lengthy
internship
involving
training,
study
and
testing
for
spiritual
suitability.
Sherry
1
Koop’s
work
with
the
disadvantaged
youth
of
Winnipeg
clearly
constitutes
ministering
to
a
congregation.
The
work
of
Youth
For
Christ
among
the
youth
of
Winnipeg
is
quite
remarkable.
It
involves
running
drop-
in
centres,
sports
facilities
and
preaching
the
gospel.
She
acts
as
chaplain
to
young
offenders
at
the
Manitoba
Youth
Center
and
Seven
Oaks
Centre
and
ministers
as
well
to
the
congregation
at
Youth
For
Christ’s
Street
Light
worship
service.
Quite
apart
from
being
a
credentialled
member
of
Youth
For
Christ,
she
is
a
commissioned
minister
of
the
Mennonite
Brethren
Churches.
I
find
the
denial
of
the
deduction
to
Sheryl
Koop
little
short
of
startling.
Both
Gilbert
Klassen
and
Brenda
Rushton
are
credentialled
members
of
Youth
For
Christ.
They
ministered
to
congregations
in
Saskatoon
in
substantially
the
same
manner
as
Sherry]
Koop
did
in
Winnipeg.
Their
work
is
arduous
and
requires
great
dedication
and
self-sacrifice.
It
is
of
consummate
importance
to
the
youth
of
the
communities
in
which
they
serve.
In
the
Austin
case
[Austin
v.
R.,
[1999]
2
C.T.C.
2270
(T.C.C.)],
the
McGorman
and
Miller
cases,
as
well
as
the
Kraft
case
[Kraft
v.
Canada
(February
26,
1999),
Doc.
DRS
99-08110
(T.C.C.)],
I
set
out
my
understanding
of
the
terms
regular
minister,
member
of
the
clergy,
and
ministering
to
a
congregation.
The
reasoning
is
equally
applicable
here.
In
my
view
they
qualify
both
as
ministers
and
as
members
of
a
religious
order,
ministering
to
a
congregation.
I
turn
now
to
The
Navigators.
This
organization
was
formed
in
1933
to
spread
the
gospel
among
sailors.
Today
its
focus
is
primarily
among
university
students.
Unlike
Youth
For
Christ,
which
serves
an
important
social
function,
the
sole
purpose
of
The
Navigators
is
proselytising.
This
of
itself
is
not
a
reason
for
concluding
that
The
Navigators
is
not
a
religious
order.
Contemplative
orders
serve
no
social
function.
Their
sole
purpose
is
the
spiritual
advancement
of
their
members.
They
are
not
for
this
reason
alone
not
religious
orders.
Nonetheless,
the
absence
of
any
social
function
distinguishes
The
Navigators
from
all
of
the
other
organizations
whose
status
as
religious
orders
I
have
had
to
consider.
Of
all
of
the
organizations
in
this
series
of
cases
—
SIM,
CBOMB,
Youth
For
Christ,
Christian
Horizons
and
The
Navigators
—
The
Navigators
are
the
only
ones
about
which
I
have
any
doubt.
I
have
no
hesitation
about
any
of
the
others.
Their
devotion,
their
acceptance
of
straitened
material
circumstances
as
a
way
of
life,
their
humility,
and
their
selfless
dedication
to
the
social
and
spiritual
goals
of
their
order
exemplify
the
highest
standards
of
a
Christian
religious
order.
The
difficulty
with
The
Navigators
is
to
determine
whether
the
members
of
that
organization
exemplify
the
same
qualities.
A
significant
distinction
between
The
Navigators
and
all
of
the
other
organizations
that
I
have
considered
is
the
concentration
on
making
money
through
fund
raising.
A
large
part
of
their
concentration
and
published
material
is
on
how
to
raise
money
and
many
of
them
appear
to
earn
substantial
incomes
and
live
comfortable
middle-class
lives.
For
example,
the
chief
of
The
Navigators
in
Canada,
Mr.
Rains,
earned
over
$94,000
in
1995.
One
of
the
appellants,
Mr.
Lawrie,
also
ran
a
paving
company.
Mr.
Lee,
a
Commended
Worker
with
the
Plymouth
Brethren,
earned
income
as
a
director
of
a
family
company.
The
Navigators
have
no
restriction
on
what
outside
activities
they
can
engage
in,
or
what
other
sources
of
income
besides
fundraising
for
themselves
may
be
developed
by
them.
The
Navigators
are
an
organization
that,
no
doubt,
proceeds
with
their
proselytising
among
university
students
with
much
zeal,
and
this
may
be
seen
by
many
as
a
worthwhile
activity.
They
also
proceed
with
considerable
zeal
in
fundraising
for
their
own
purposes,
and
are
free
to
pursue
any
other
means
of
making
money.
Although
they
meet
some
of
the
criteria
set
out
above
in
which
I
endeavoured
to
enumerate
the
qualities
that
were
characteristic
of
a
religious
order,
it
cannot
be
said
that
they
meet
them
all.
Unlike
the
members
of
the
other
organizations,
the
members
of
The
Navigators
earn
comfortable
incomes,
can
set
their
own
level
of
targeted
income,
devote
a
significant
part
of
their
time
to
raising
funds
for
their
own
support,
and
are
free
to
earn
income
from
other
sources.
This
is
a
significant
distinction.
It
is
not
merely
a
difference
in
degree.
It
is
a
fundamental
and
qualitative
difference.
It
is
not
without
hesitation
and
anxious
consideration
that
I
have
concluded
that
The
Navigators
are
not
a
religious
order.
I
do
not
mean
in
any
way
to
trivialize
the
importance
of
what
they
do,
or
to
belittle
the
dedication
with
which
they
seek
to
bring
the
Gospel
to
university
students.
In
considering
the
status
as
religious
orders
of
all
of
the
organizations
involved
in
this
series
of
cases,
I
have
endeavoured,
based
upon
the
expert
testimony
and
the
voluminous
religious
authorities
adduced
in
evidence
and
referred
to
in
argument,
to
give
to
the
words
in
paragraph
8(1)(c),
including
“religious
order”,
a
meaning
that
recognizes
the
development
over
the
past
century
or
so
of
new
forms
of
religious
institution
and
does
not
depend
upon
rigid
classifications
that
may
have
had
validity
in
an
earlier
era.
This
does
not,
however,
mean
that
every
religious
institution
or
organization
is
a
religious
order.
The
criteria
that
I
have
formulated,
albeit
broader
than
these
set
out
in
McRae,
are
in
fact
quite
narrow
and,
even
on
my
tests,
it
is
relatively
strait
gate
through
which
an
organization
must
pass
if
it
is
to
be
regarded
as
a
religious
order.
To
include
The
Navigators
with
the
other
organizations
within
the
term
“religious
order”
would
in
my
view
be
to
stretch
the
meaning
of
that
term
to
a
degree
that
is
not
warranted.
The
remaining
question
is
whether
any
of
the
appellants
who
belong
to
The
Navigators
are
regular
ministers
or
members
of
the
clergy
ministering
to
a
congregation
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full
time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
denomination.
The
only
one
of
The
Navigators
who
qualifies
as
a
minister
or
member
of
the
clergy
is
Reverend
Lee,
who
is
a
Commended
Worker
of
the
Plymouth
Brethren.
I
should
find
it
difficult
to
conclude
that
Reverend
Lee
was
not
ministering
to
a
congregation.
He
ministers
to
the
English
language
congregation
of
the
Chinese
Christian
Chapel
in
Vancouver,
an
independent
Christian
congregation
loosely
connected
with
the
Christian
and
Missionary
Alliance
denominations,
with
about
500
members
of
which
about
150
are
in
the
English
language
congregation.
In
1989,
he
was
invited
by
his
congregation
to
be
pastor,
but
he
declined
so
that
he
could
continue
his
work
with
The
Navigators.
He
did
however
accept
a
position
as
Missionary
in
Residence.
He
is
responsible
for
the
conduct
of
the
English
language
services
at
the
Chinese
Christian
Chapel.
He
led
worship
services,
provided
communion
and
preached.
His
work
also
included
baptisms,
funerals
and
benedictions.
He
led
Bible
studies,
prayer
group
meetings
and
taught
Sunday
school.
The
appeals
of
the
members
of
Youth
For
Christ
are
allowed.
The
appeals
of
The
Navigators
are
dismissed,
except
for
that
of
William
Lee,
which
is
allowed.
I
shall
defer
dealing
with
costs
until
counsel
have
had
an
opportunity
of
making
representations.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content