Hugessen
J.A.:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
Minister
refusing
the
appellant's
application
to
register
as
a
charity
under
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
In
the
correspondence
exchanged
between
the
Minister
and
the
appellant,
the
appellant's
corporate
objects
were
discussed,
as
was
the
possibility
of
amending
them
by
obtaining
supplementary
letters
patent.
On
November
15,
1991,
however,
the
date
of
the
decision
a
quo,
no
such
amendment
had
been
requested
or
obtained.
At
the
hearing
of
the
appeal,
the
appellant
applied
under
Rule
1102
to
put
the
supplementary
letters
patent
issued
at
the
request
of
the
appellant,
amending
its
corporate
objects,
in
evidence
before
us.
The
supplementary
letters
patent
are
dated
February
9,
1993,
and
reflect
a
resolution
passed
by
the
appellant
on
November
10,
1992.
Not
only
did
the
respondent
oppose
the
motion
that
the
supplementary
letters
patent
be
admitted
into
evidence,
but
she
in
turn
made
a
motion,
seeking
to
have
the
appeal
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
it
has
now
become
moot.
We
are
of
the
opinion
that
the
appellant's
motion
must
be
dismissed
and
the
respondent's
allowed.
It
appears
clear
to
us
that
even
if
the
Minister
did
state
opinions
on
the
possibility
of
amending
the
appellant's
corporate
objects,
his
negative
decision
could
have
dealt
only
with
the
objects
as
they
existed
at
the
actual
time
of
the
decision;
accordingly,
the
new
evidence
offered
is
not
relevant
to
the
sole
question
we
must
answer:
whether
the
Minister's
decision
was
well
founded.
Moreover,
we
are
of
the
opinion
that
the
appellant
has
not
met
the
conditions
which
must
be
satisfied
if
new
evidence
is
to
be
produced
on
appeal.
The
new
evidence
offered
is
in
large
measure
dependent
on
the
will
of
the
appellant
itself;
it
is
therefore
difficult
to
assert
that
the
appellant
was
unable
to
produce
it
before
the
date
of
the
decision
a
quo.
On
the
other
hand,
we
are
also
of
the
opinion
that
the
effect
of
the
amendment
of
the
corporate
objects
since
the
date
of
the
decision
was
to
remove
the
subject
matter
of
the
appeal.
Whether
or
not
the
Minister
was
correct
in
deciding
as
he
did,
the
supplementary
letters
patent
make
this
question
moot.
The
appellant's
only
recourse
at
this
time
would
be
to
make
a
new
application
to
the
Minister
for
registration.
The
appellant’s
motion
under
Rule
1102
will
be
dismissed.
The
appeal
will
also
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content