Before dismissing the appellant’s appeal under s. 172(3)(a.1) of the revocation of its registration as a charitable organization, Ryer JA noted that one of the grounds for revocation was that the Appellant had failed to devote all of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it (which were not considered to include amounts paid to disabled fundraisers), stating (at paras. 58, 59 & 61):
…[O]nly one percent of the funds raised by the Appellant was deployed towards charitable activities in the period under review. This led the Minister to determine that fundraising itself was the Appellant’s primary activity during this period.
…[A]pproximately 70% of the Appellant’s revenues for the relevant period were expended on fundraising. …
…[F]undraising itself cannot become a raison d'être for a charity. …[T]he high level of fundraising activities undertaken … can reasonably be regarded as having become an end in itself.
Respecting a further ground that the appellant had provided undue benefits to fundraisers and directors, he stated (at para. 43):
[A] charitable organization is required to devote all of its resources to the charitable activities that it carries on. This requirement is necessarily breached if resources of the organization are instead devoted to the provision of undue benefits.
Additional grounds for revocation, which were accepted, were:
- making gifts to non-qualified donees;
- failing to maintain adequate books and records and
- failing to file an information return as required by the Act.