Dussault
T.C.J.:
These
appeals
were
heard
under
the
informal
procedure.
They
are
appeals
from
assessments
for
the
appellant’s
1991,
1993
and
1994
taxation
years.
During
each
of
these
years,
the
appellant
remitted
by
cheque
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
of
the
Missions
Pères
Jésuites
(the
“Office
of
the
treasurer”)
the
sums
of
$9,250,
$6,650
and
$5,145
respectively.
On
each
occasion,
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
gave
the
appellant
a
duly
completed
receipt
and
the
appellant
accordingly
claimed
a
credit
for
charitable
gifts
under
section
118.1
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act’’)
for
each
of
the
years.
However,
for
1991,
the
credit
claimed
by
the
appellant
was
for
only
half
of
the
amount
paid,
his
spouse,
Lucie
Brunelle,
claiming
the
credit
for
the
other
half.
Since,
on
the
instructions
of
the
appellant,
the
amounts
paid
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
were
remitted
to
an
orphanage
in
Taiwan,
Cathwel
Service
(“Cathwel”),
from
which
the
appellant
and
his
spouse
adopted
two
children
in
1991
and
1994
respectively,
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
disallowed
the
credits
claimed.
The
respondent
argued
that
the
amounts
given
did
not
constitute
true
charitable
gifts
but
rather
adoption
fees
considered
as
personal
expenses
of
the
appellant.
The
respondent
also
maintained
that
the
amounts
were
not
given
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
but
to
Cathwel
with
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
acting
as
intermediary;
hence,
the
funds
were
not
given
to
a
registered
charity
nor
given
to
a
charitable
organization
outside
Canada
to
which
Her
Majesty
in
right
of
Canada
had
made
a
gift
during
the
taxation
year
in
issue
or
the
12
months
immediately
preceding
that
taxation
year.
In
the
circumstances,
one
or
the
other
of
these
requirements
must
be
met
to
have
entitlement
to
the
credit
under
paragraph
(a)
or
(g)
of
the
definition
of
“total
charitable
gifts”
in
subsection
118.1
(
1
)
of
the
Act.
The
evidence
has
shown,
and
counsel
for
the
appellant
was
prepared
to
admit,
that
Cathwel
does
not
meet
either
of
these
requirements.
For
his
part,
the
appellant
argued
that
the
amounts
paid
were
true
charitable
gifts
and
that
these
gifts
were
made
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer,
a
registered
charity,
despite
the
request
that
the
funds
be
sent
to
Cathwel.
During
his
testimony,
the
appellant
stated
that
he
had
decided
to
make
gifts
to
support
the
Cathwel
organization
which,
according
to
him,
had
been
founded
by
the
Jesuits
after
the
war.
The
organization
owns
an
orphanage
and
is
currently
run
by
Sister
Rosa
Wang.
It
helps
unwed
mothers,
tries
to
find
foreign
adoptions
for
children
and
looks
after
disabled
children
who
are
unfortunate
enough
not
to
be
adopted.
The
appellant
learned
of
the
existence
of
Cathwel
through
the
Richelieu
social
services
centre,
a
government
organization
with
which
he
had
filed
an
application
for
adoption.
This
organization
and
the
Secrétariat
à
l’adoption
internationale
acted
as
the
intermediaries
for
the
adoption
by
the
appellant
and
his
spouse
of
their
first
child,
a
boy,
in
August
1991.
According
to
the
appellant,
the
costs
associated
with
the
adoption
of
this
child
were
apparently
only
$300.
During
his
testimony,
the
appellant
stated
that
he
learned
from
a
brochure
that
the
approximate
expenses
for
Cathwel
were
between
$8,000
and
$10,000
to
care
for
a
child.
However,
the
appellant
admitted
that
among
the
documents
received
in
connection
with
the
adoption
of
this
first
child
was
a
detailed
statement
of
the
costs
incurred
by
Cathwel
for
the
mother
and
the
child;
this
document
was
entitled
“Expenditures”.
Listed
in
the
document
were
the
costs
for
prenatal
care,
for
the
delivery
and
for
postnatal
care.
Also
listed
were
costs
related
to
the
actual
adoption,
including
costs
for
obtaining
a
passport
and
an
exit
permit,
as
well
as
transportation
costs.
The
total
costs
incurred
were
US$6,093.25.
The
appellant
claimed
that
the
document
was
not
approved
and
that
its
purpose
was
merely
to
provide
an
indication
of
the
costs
incurred
by
Cathwel.
In
his
opinion,
it
was
not
an
invoice.
The
appellant
argued
that
he
had
not
been
asked
to
pay
this
amount
and
that
he
had
no
obligation
to
do
so.
He
admitted
that
Sister
Rosa
Wang
solicited
funds
to
support
her
organization
and
that
it
was
precisely
to
support
this
organization
in
which
he
was
very
interested
that
he
agreed
to
make
gifts
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
which
had
itself
agreed
to
support
Cathwel.
An
initial
amount
of
$9,250,
which
the
appellant
considered
to
be
a
gift,
was
paid
by
cheque
to
the
order
of
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
in
September
1991.
The
adoption
by
the
appellant
and
his
wife
of
the
second
child
from
Cathwel,
a
girl,
occurred
in
May
1994.
This
time,
the
organization
Enfants
d’Orient
acted
as
the
intermediary
and
the
adoption
fees
paid
were
allegedly
$500.
The
appellant
testified
that,
in
connection
with
this
adoption,
he
did
not
receive
a
document
from
Cathwel
itemizing
expenses
as
had
been
the
case
in
1991
when
the
first
child
was
adopted.
The
appellant
gave
a
second
amount
of
$6,650
on
December
30,
1993
and
a
third
amount
of
$5,145
on
June
17,
1994,
always
by
cheque
made
payable
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
and
requesting
on
each
occasion
that
the
money
be
sent
to
Cathwel.
In
1992,
the
appellant
allegedly
also
sent
a
sum
of
US$300
directly
to
Cathwel.
The
assessment
for
1992
is
not
at
issue.
On
each
of
the
three
occasions
that
a
cheque
for
one
of
the
amounts
in
question
was
sent
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer,
it
was
accompanied
by
a
letter
from
the
appellant,addressed
to
Father
Roland
St-Denis,
with
similar
wording.
The
relevant
portion
of
the
first
letter,
dated
August
27,
1991,
reads
as
follows:
[TRANSLATION]
The
purpose
of
this
letter
is
to
make
a
gift
in
the
amount
of
$9,250;
for
which
a
cheque
is
attached.
This
gift
will
serve
to
pay
the
adoption
fees
of
a
child
in
Taiwan.
This
amount
should
be
sent
to
the
following
address:
Sister
Rosa
Wang,
M.M.B.
Executive
secretary
Cathwel
Service
P.O.
Box
8-184
Taipei
10098
No.
2,
9th
Fl.,
Sec.
1,
Chung
Shan
N.
Rd
Taipei
10041
Taïwan,
R.O.C.
We
would
also
like
a
receipt
issued
in
the
name
of
Jean-Pierre
Beaudry
and
sent
to
the
following
address:
[Emphasis
added.]
The
appellant
testified
that
he
had
contributed
to
the
adoption
organization
for
several
years,
not
only
through
the
monetary
gifts
mentioned,
but
also
through
specific
gifts
such
as
clothing
and
toys
for
the
children
of
the
orphanage
run
by
Cathwel.
He
also
mentioned
that
he
served
as
a
volunteer
with
Enfants
d’Orient,
primarily
from
1992
to
1994.
During
those
years,
the
appellant
had
been,
among
other
things,
a
member
of
the
board
of
this
organization.
He
was
also
involved
in
fundraising,
helping
parents
and
organizing
certain
activities.
He
also
went
to
Taiwan
to
meet
Sister
Rosa
Wang
and
to
bring
back
three
children
adopted
by
other
parents.
Despite
the
document
received
from
Cathwel
in
1991
and
the
wording
of
his
letters
to
Father
St-Denis,
the
appellant
claimed
that,
each
time,
he
had
made
a
gift
of
an
amount
that
he
knew
corresponded
approximately
to
the
costs
of
a
child
for
Sister
Rosa
Wang
and
not
to
the
actual
costs
incurred
with
respect
to
the
two
children
adopted
by
him
and
his
wife.
While
the
letter
of
August
27,
1991
does
not
in
fact
mention
the
name
of
a
child,
those
of
December
29,
1993
and
June
14,
1994
do
and
the
appellant
admitted
that
it
was
the
name
of
the
child
he
and
his
wife
had
adopted
in
May
1994.
Another
point
is
that
the
last
letter,
that
of
June
14,
1994,
also
mentioned
an
additional
cheque
of
$10
“covering
administrative
charges”.
The
testimony
of
Lucie
Brunelle,
the
appellant’s
spouse,
was
in
the
Same
vein
as
that
of
the
appellant.
The
funds
given
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
constituted
gifts
truly
motivated
by
their
desire
to
support
the
cause
for
adoption
and
had
no
relation
to
the
costs
incurred
by
Cathwel
for
the
two
children
they
had
adopted.
According
to
her,
no
one
had
ever
asked
them
for
anything
of
that
nature
and
the
value
of
the
gifts
was
essentially
based
on
an
approximation
of
the
funds
needed
to
support
the
Cathwel
organization.
As
to
her
knowledge
of
the
relationship
between
the
Jesuits
and
Cathwel,
Ms.
Brunelle
explained
it
as
follows:
[TRANSLATION]
The
letters
were
addressed
to
the
Jesuits
because
that
was
the
connection
we
had
between
Quebec
and
Sister
Rosa,
it
was
the
route
that
we
knew,
because,
among
other
things,
when
my
sister-in-law,
who
is
my
daughter’s
godmother
and
who
went
to
get
her
over
there,
she
went
to
the
Jesuits
because
she
had
a
friend
in
common
which
Father
Aubin,
and
she
went
to
mass
over
there
with
Sister
Rosa;
also
the
building
in
which
Cathwel
is
located
belongs
to
the
Jesuits.
Therefore
it
was
normal
for
us,
when
we
were
inquiring
as
to
how
we
could
make
a
gift
to
help
this
organization,
to
be
told
the
Jesuit
Missions;
we
said:
“Of
course,
that
makes
sense,
they
help
in
Taiwan.”^
and
later:
[TRANSLATION]
Naturally
we
turned
to
Enfants
d’Orient
and
asked:
“We
want
to
help
Sister
Rosa’s
organization,
how
do
we
go
about
it?”
I
could
not
see
myself
sending
a
significant
amount
of
money
by
mail,
I
do
not
know
how
it
works
over
there,
it
is
not
clear.
I
was
told:
“It
is
the
Jesuits
who
have
a
mission
over
there
and
who
help
Sister
Rosa;
you
can
contact
them
and
make
the
gift
to
the
Jesuits
and
ask
if
they
could
help
Sister
Rosa.”
It
seemed
perfectly
logical
to
me.8
The
testimony
of
Father
Roland
St-Denis,
the
Jesuit
who
received
the
funds,
issued
the
charitable
receipts
and
sent
the
funds
received
to
Cathwel
differed
significantly
from
that
of
the
appellant
and
his
wife
in
terms
of
the
relationship
between
the
Jesuits
and
Cathwel
and
in
terms
of
the
role
actually
played
by
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
with
respect
to
the
funds
received
not
only
from
the
appellant
but
also
from
a
significant
number
of
other
adoptive
parents.
His
testimony,
during
examination
by
counsel
for
the
appellant,
revealed
the
well-maintained
ties
between
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
and
Cathwel,
as
evidenced
by
the
following
extract
from
the
transcript:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
Father
St-Denis,
can
you
tell
the
Court
how
long
you
have
known
the
Cathwel
Mission?
A.
Since
1990
when
the
first
...
the
first
parents
sent
me,
asked
me
if
I
could
send
money
to
Sister
Rosa
Wang^
for,
as
charitable
gifts
for
her
orphanage
because
they
were
adopting
a
child.
Q.
Do
you
remember
who
the
first
parent
was,
Father
St-Denis?
A.
Oh,
well!
You
...
it
is
absolutely
impossible
for
me
to
tell
you
who.
The
very
first,
at
the
beginning,
it
was
a
relative
of
Father
Marcile
and
it
was
Father
Marcile
who
asked
me
if
I
could
send
their
money
to
Taiwan.
I
said:
“Yes,
I
can
send
it
to
our
bursar
in
Hong
Kong,
Father
Bourque,
then
he
can
send
it
to
Taiwan,
to
our
fathers
in
Taiwan
who
will
get
it
to
Sister
Wang.
But
later,
when
people
came
to
me
for
...
they
were
sent
by
...
the
first
ones,
I
think,
it
was
Enfant
[sic]
d’Orient
which
sent
me
people,
then
I
contacted
Sister
Wang
and
her
bank
and
so
on
and
then
I
sent
the
money
directly
there
at
the
beginning
of
each
month.
That
is,
what
I
received
during
the
month,
I
sent
to
her
at
the
beginning
of
the
following
month.
Q.
Why
did
you
send
...
why
did
you
agree
to
send
the
money
over
there?
A.
I
agreed
because
I
thought
it
was
a
charitable
gift,
to
raise
a
child,
take
care
of
a
child,
and
it
was
children
in
an
orphanage.
The
orphanage
was
a
charitable
organization
and
in
my
view,
I
do
not
want,
I
do
not
want
to
say
that
it
was
right
because
it
seems
that
it
was
not
right,
but
in
my
view,
it
was
truly
a
charitable
organization.
And
since
it
was
to
help
the
orphanage,
it
was
clearly
to
offset
the
orphanage’s
costs
in
raising
children,
that
was
understood,
the
gifts
that
were
made
were
to
pay
for
all
care,
if
you
will,
the
thing,
the
assets
where
they
needed
money
to
keep
alive,
to
take
care
of
the
children,
and
to
be
able
to
maintain
the
orphanage,
therefore
for
me
it
was
a
charitable
gift.
That
is
why
I
agreed
to
give
receipts
for
tax
purposes.
Q.
Were
the
people
...
have
you
spoken
to
Sister
Rosa
at
any
time
in
your
life?
A.
Yes,
she
came
to
Montréal
on
two
(2)
or
...
I
think
it
is
on
three
(3)
occasions
that
I
saw
her
in
person.
On
one
occasion,
Ms.
Leboeuf
came
with
her,
the
other
two
(2)
times,
I
believe
it
was
Ms.
Lachance
from
Enfants
d’Orient.
Q.
Do
you
know
if
Sister
Rosa
required
that
gifts
be
made
in
order
for
adoptions
to
take
place?
A.
I
assumed
that
she
had
to
ask
them
if
they
were
able
to
cover
what
it
cost
to
care
for
the
child
over
there,
to
give
a
certain
amount
of
money
to
cover,
to
help
the
orphanage
to
continue
caring
for
children.
But
I
never
discussed
this
matter
with
Sister
Rosa
Wang.
Q.
Is
it
usual
for
the
Mission
des
Pères
Jésuites
to
send
gifts
that
it
receives
to
specific
organizations
at
the
request
of
the
donor?
A.
Rarely.
It
is
not
...
we
first
look
after
our
Jesuit
organizations.
Then
to
other
organizations
which
are
linked
to
the
Jesuits
in
other
provinces.
For
example,
we
have
sent
charitable
gifts
to
Africa,
Cameroon,
Uganda,
Burundi,
but
to
the
Jesuits
over
there,
for
their
work,
to
support,
to
care
for
refugees
and
so
on
10
[Emphasis
added.]
During
cross-examination
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
on
the
true
relationship
between
Cathwel
and
the
Jesuits,
Father
St-Denis
offered
the
following
clarification:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
Is
it
true
that
the
Cathwel
organization,
the
Cathwel
orphanage,
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
Jesuits?
A.
Listen,
I
am
not
in
Taiwan,
I
do
not
know.
The
first,
the
first
time,
as
I
said
earlier,
that
I
sent
money
to
Sister
Rosa
Wang,
it
was
our
Father
Marcile
who
was
a
missionary
in
Taiwan
who
came
to
Canada,
who
returned
to
Canada
and
who
asked
me
if
I
could
send
the
gift.
Well,
I
agreed,
do
you
see?
And
since
it
was
for
an
organization,
an
orphanage,
and
even
if
it
was
not
run
by
the
Jesuits,
well,
it
was
a
religious
organization...
Q.
Yes.
A.
...and
then...
Q.
But
it
is
not
a
Jesuit
organization?
A.
No,
no,
it
is
not
a
Jesuit
organization.
Q.
And
the
building,
the
land,
there
is
nothing
that
belongs
to
the
Jesuits?
A.
There
is
nothing
that
is
owned
by
the
Jesuits,
to
my
knowledge.
Q.
And
it
is
not
administered
by
the
Jesuits?
A.
No,
it
is
administered
by
the
nuns,
it
is
the
MMC,
I
used
to
know
what
the
initials
stood
for,
but
I
can
no
longer
remember,
it
is
the
Chinese
nuns
of
Taiwan,
who,
I
think,
used
to
be
in
mainland
China.
H
As
to
his
own
role
in
the
routing
of
the
funds
received
from
the
appellant
to
Cathwel,
Father
St-Denis
explained
it
as
follows
during
his
cross-examination
by
counsel
for
the
respondent:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
Sir,
my
Father,
Jesuit
Father,
Father
St-Denis,
excuse
me,
I
would
like
to
show
you
Exhibits
I-1,
I-3
and
1-4,
are
these
letters
addressed
to
you?
A.
Yes,
yes,
Mr.
Beaudry,
yes,
they
are
photocopies
that
I
made
myself
of
letters
I
have
at
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
for
the
Mission.
Q.
Fine.
From
these
letters
you
received
very
clear
instructions
from
Mr.
Beaudry...
R.
Yes,
to
send
the
money
to
Sister
Rosa
Wang,
as
it
says
here:
We
want
to
make
a
gift...
Q.
Yes,
but
you
received
instructions
to
send
the
money
to
Sister
Rosa
Wang.
A.
To
Sister
Rosa
Wang.
Q.
Did
you
consider
yourself
to
be
Mr.
Beaudry’s
agent?
A.
Well,
as
the
intermediary
between
the
two
(2).
Q.
The
intermediary.
You
stated
that
it
was
not
usual
to
do
this
kind
of
thing,
that
normally
you
send
money
to
Jesuit
organizations...
A.
Yes,
normally.
Q.
...and
that
this
is
out
of
the
ordinary
then?
A.
Yes,
yes.
2
[Emphasis
added.
I
As
to
the
question
of
whether
he
could
issue
receipts
and
concerning
the
checking
he
did
in
this
regard,
here
is
what
was
revealed
during
Father
St-
Denis’s
cross-examination:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
Did
you
check
with
someone
to
determine
if
you
could
issue
receipts?
A.
That
is
to
say,
I
had
...
we
discussed
it
among
ourselves,
I
discussed
it
with
a
father
who
was
a
doctor
of
ethics
and
I
explained
the
situation
and
he
said
to
me:
“Yes,
yes,
of
course
you
can
issue
a
charitable
receipt.”
I
then
talked
to
the
bursar,
Father
Laberge,
and
we
decided
to
go
ahead
because
it
was
a
charitable
organization.
But
when
the
government
officials
came,
I
am
not
sure,
in
95
or
94,
they
asked
us
questions
and
told
us
that
we
could
not
do
it,
and
so
we
stopped
completely.
13
Father
Marcel
Laberge,
bursar
for
the
Office
of
the
treasurer,
testified
at
the
request
of
the
respondent
and
filed
in
evidence
a
number
of
accounting
documents
relating
to
an
individual
current
account
established
in
the
name
of
Sister
Rosa
Wang.
These
documents
showed
the
amounts
received
by
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
from
various
identified
persons.
Included
therein
were
the
three
amounts
paid
by
the
appellant
in
1991,
1993
and
1994.
According
to
Father
Laberge,
and
as
shown
in
these
documents,
all
of
the
funds
received
each
month
were
sent
to
Cathwel
in
the
form
of
a
bank
draft
in
American
funds.
During
the
examination,
Father
Laberge
explained
how
the
account
was
set
up
in
the
following
terms:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
And
at
the
top
of
the
page
it
says
Sister
Rosa
Wang,
why
does
it
say
Sister
Rosa
Wang
and
exactly
what
account
is
it?
A.
As
I
said
at
the
beginning,
it
is
a
current
account,
what
we
call
in
our
jargon,
personal
allocations,
but
in
terms
of
the
current
account,
Rosa
Wang
had
a
current
account.
And
everything
that
was,
all
the
money
received
which
went,
which
was
suppose
to
go
to
Rosa
Wang,
it
was
placed,
it
was
recorded
on
this
sheet,
it
is
a
number,
an
individual
current
account,
if
you
like.
Q.
Why
was
this
account
set
up
for
her?
A.
But
all
the
names
that
are
there,
that
appear...
Q.
Yes,
but...
A.
...it
is
the
same
as
with
Mr.
Beaudry,
it
is
people
who
sent
money,
an
amount
at
the
request
of
Sister
Rosa
Wang
for
an
adoption.
That
meant
that
we,
we
set
up
a
current
account
because
the
amounts
that
were
received,
basically,
it
was
as
if
they
did
not
belong
to
us,
it
was
understood
that
we
sent
them
on,
but
not
each
time
that
a
cheque
was
received,
we
sent
them
at
the
end
of
the
month.
15
[Emphasis
added.]
The
letter
sent
with
each
of
the
bank
drafts
in
American
funds
to
Cathwel
was
addressed
to
Sister
Rosa
Wang
and
was
signed
by
Father
St-
Denis.
On
each
occasion,
it
included
what
Father
St-Denis
called
the
“list
of
your
benefactors”.
The
letter
of
January
11,
1994
referred
to
the
total
of
all
donations
received
in
December
“in
your
favor”.
That
of
July
7,
1994
mentioned
the
total
of
all
donations
received
during
the
month
of
June
“for
your
charitable
organization”.
Called
to
testify
again
at
my
request
to
clarify
the
procedure
for
the
allocation
of
funds
received
by
the
Office
of
the
treasurer,
Father
St-Denis
explained
the
different
procedures
depending
on
whether
it
is
a
general
gift
which
is
then
allocated
by
a
gifts
committee
made
up
of
five
people
or
whether
it
is
what
is
designated
as
directed
gifts
or
personal
gifts
which
are
recorded
and
simply
forwarded
to
their
recipient.
The
difference
was
explained
in
the
following
terms:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
[...]
Who
made
the
decision
to
send
one
hundred
and
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
($125,000)
to
Sister
Wang?
A.
Well,
Father
Laberge
made
me
responsible
for
sending
all
of
the
funds,
all
that
...
he
gave
me
the
reports,
you
must
have
them,
I
think
that
...
I
do
not
know
if
you
have
the
sheet,
there...
Q.
Father
St-Denis,
if
we
could
simply,
more
simply,
was
it
authorized
by
the
committee?
A.
It
was
authorized
by
the
director
and
by
Father
Laberge.
Q.
Was
it
authorized
by
management...
A.
No,
because...
Q.
...by
the
committee
you
referred
to?
A.
No,
no,
the
committee
I
mentioned,
that
is
simply
for
gifts,
requests
that
we
receive
from
missionaries
or
missionary
organizations
outside
of
the
country.
For
charities
that
we
receive
during
the
month
for
each
missionary
or
for
a
specific
organization,
at
the
end
of
the
month,
the
total
is
determined
and
I
am
responsible
for
sending
the
money.
I
do
not
know
if
that
answers
your
question?
Q.
In
part,
yes,
in
part
only.
A.
I
do
not
know
...
if
you
could
tell
me
what
you
need
explained
again.
Q.
If
you
receive
general
funds,
then...
A.
Yes.
Q.
...who
decides
to
assign
this
money
to
one
mission
rather
than
another?
A.
Ah!
Well,
in
that
case.
wait.
We
receive
charities,
part
of
these
charities,
in
letters,
it
is
indicated
which
missionary
the
money
is
for.
Then,
we
cannot
take
that
money
and
do
something
else
with
it,
it
is
sent
to
that
father.
There
is
some
money,
general
gifts
they
are
called,
which
is
given
to
us
to
help
missions,
that
money,
if
you
will,
the
amounts
are
decided
...
to
be
sent
are
decided
by
the
gift
committee,
7
what
we
call
personal
gifts.
That
happens
every
month,
they
are
sent
to
various
missionaries,
to
different
organizations,
as
indicated
by
the
donors.
Q.
O.K.
Then,
how,
where
do
I
put
the
gifts,
in
quotation
marks,
made
...
in
this
instance,
which
were
sent
to
Sister
Wang?
A.
In
what
we
call
personal
gifts,
in
the
personal
gifts
column,
because
it
was
sent
for
a
specific
organization.
Q.
Then,
as
I
understand
it,
no
one
had
a
decision
to
make
within...
A.
No,
no,
no,
because,
another
example,
for
example,
there
are
people...
Q.
In
other
words,
there
is
no
discretion
concerning
such
funds?
A.
Ah!
No,
what
do
you
mean
by
no
discretion?
Q.
You
receive,
you
receive
from
Mr.
Beaudry
six
thousand
five
hundred,
I
do
not
know
how
much,
fifty
dollars
($6650),
to
be
sent
to
Sister
Wang.
A.
To
be
sent
...
then,
it
is
sent,
it
is
entered
as
a
personal
gift
in
our
personal
gift
accounting
column
and,
at
the
end
of
the
month,
as
you
have
the
list,
the
amount
is
sent
to
Cathwel
Service.
Just,
for
example,
like
the
money
I
receive
for
our
Father
Luis
Ruiz
who
is
in
Macao;
at
the
end
of
the
month,
I
send
him
all
of
the
charities
received
for
him.
Q.
O.K.
This
morning
you
said
that
Cathwel
was
not
in
any
way
administered,
that
it
is
not
a
Jesuit
mission?
A.
No,
it
is
an
orphanage
and
it
is
not
Jesuit.^
Questioned
again
by
counsel
for
the
appellant,
Father
St-Denis
stated
that
he
would
not
have
agreed
to
send
the
money
to
an
individual
because
then
it
would
not
have
been
sent
to
a
charitable
organization.
The
following
clarification
was
given:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
Then,
when
you
are
asked
to
send
money
somewhere,
before
issuing
a
receipt,
you
decide
whether
or
not
to
accept
the
organization
or
the
money?
A.
Of
course,
of
course.
And
I
can,
if
your
Honour
will
allow
me,
I
can
give
you
an
example.
Yesterday,
someone
called
me
and
asked
if
I
would
act
as
an
intermediary
to
send
money
to
a
gentleman,
one
of
his
relatives,
who
is
in
Cameroon;
I
said:
“No,
sir
-
I
said
-
we
cannot
act
as
an
intermediary
to
send
money
to
someone
in
particular.
We
can
forward
money
to
organizations,
to
our
fathers
who
are
missionaries
over
there,
but
not
to
individuals
”1
Then,
questioned
by
counsel
for
the
appellant
on
the
origin
of
the
wording
used
by
the
appellant
in
one
of
the
letters
the
appellant
sent
him
with
his
cheque
indicating
that
the
gift
was
to
be
used
to
pay
adoption
fees,
Father
St-Denis
offered
the
following
explanation:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
I
now
have
one
other
small
question,
Father
St-Denis.
You
will
recall,
we
asked
you
to
read
this
letter
a
few
minutes
ago...
A.
Yes.
Q.
...which
was
sent
by
Mr.
Beaudry.
A.
Yes,
yes.
Q.
The
sentence,
“This
gift
will
serve
to
pay
the
adoption
fees
for
a
child
from
Taiwan
whose
name
Is...
A.
Yes.
Q.
...Chiu-ho”,
is
it
correct
to
say
that
you
suggested
to
Mr.
Beaudry
that
he
write
this
in
his
letter?
A.
Well,
I
probably,
when
he
spoke
to
me,
I
probably
told
him:
“Listen,
it
is
a
gift
you
are
making
or
if
it
is...’’
He
said:
“Yes,
it
is
to
adopt
a
child
and
then
it
is
to
pay
for
the
expenses
that
were
incurred
by
Sister
Wang,
the
orphanage
over
there
to
help
it
survive.”
Then
I
said:
“If
it
is
a
gift,
that
is
fine,
I
accept
it.”
Then,
he
wrote
me
the
letter
saying
“it
is
a
gift”.
Q.
You
made
the
decision
to
accept
it?
A.
Yes.20
Cross-examined
by
counsel
for
the
respondent
as
to
the
meaning
of
this
acceptance,
Father
St-Denis
stated
the
following:
[TRANSLATION]
Q.
When
you
say
that
you
made
the
decision
to
accept,
is
it
correct
to
say
that
you
made
the
decision
to
agree
to
forward
the
money?
A.
To
forward
the
money,
that
is
obvious.
Q.
But
you
did
not
make
the
decision,
a
decision
other
than
that
one?
A.
No,
no,
it
was
to
act
as
the
intermediary
between
Mr.
Beaudry
and
Cathwel
Serviced
[Emphasis
added.]
From
the
testimony
heard
and
the
documents
filed
in
evidence,
there
could
certainly
be
doubt
as
to
whether
the
funds
paid
by
the
appellant
were
true
gifts.
However,
I
do
not
feel
it
is
necessary
to
decide
this
question
definitively
given
the
conclusion
I
have
reached
on
the
role
of
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
in
this
matter.
In
effect,
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
the
evidence
presented,
and
particularly
the
testimony
of
Father
Laberge
and
Father
St-
Denis,
of
whose
testimony
I
have
purposely
cited
several
extracts,
establishes
by
the
weight
of
evidence,
if
not
absolutely,
that
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
acted
as
an
intermediary
between
the
appellant
and
Cathwel,
nothing
more.
While
some
would
consider
the
payment
of
the
small
administrative
fee
by
the
appellant
to
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
as
a
mere
detail,
it
nevertheless
confirms
the
role
of
intermediary
played
by
the
Office
of
the
treasurer.
The
funds
paid
by
the
appellant
were
not
intended
for
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
but
for
Cathwel.
This
organization
is
not
a
Jesuit
mission
nor
a
Jesuit
organization.
The
decision
to
agree
to
forward
the
money
to
Cathwel
cannot
be
interpreted
as
acceptance
of
a
gift
by
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
nor
as
a
decision
to
support
the
work
of
this
organization
as
though
it
were
a
Jesuit
organization
or
mission.
It
is
my
opinion
that
the
sole
beneficiary
of
the
funds
given
was
Cathwel,
an
organization
that
does
not
meet
the
requirements
under
paragraphs
(a)
or
(g)
of
the
definition
of
“total
charitable
gifts”
in
subsection
118.1(1)
of
the
Act.
I
believe
that
the
decision
of
the
Office
of
the
treasurer
to
issue
receipts
was
therefore
inappropriate
in
the
circumstances.
Accordingly,
the
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content