Kempo,
J.T.C.C.:—This
informal
procedure
appeal
concerns
the
appellant’s
1990
taxation
year
which
arose
from
the
disallowance
by
the
respondent
acting
through
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
"Minister")
of
his
claim
for
a
residence
deduction
pursuant
to
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
which
provides:
8.
Deductions
allowed
(1)
In
computing
a
taxpayer's
income
for
a
taxation
year
from
an
office
or
employment,
there
may
be
deducted
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
wholly
applicable
to
that
source
or
such
part
of
the
following
amounts
as
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
applicable
thereto:
(c)
Clergyman's
residence.—
where
the
taxpayer
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
of
a
religious
order
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
and
is
in
charge
of,
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full-
time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
religious
denomination,
an
amount
equal
to
(i)
the
value
of
the
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
occupied
by
him
in
the
course
of
or
by
virtue
of
his
office
or
employment
as
such
member
or
minister
so
in
charge
of
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
so
engaged
in
such
administrative
service,
to
the
extent
that
such
value
is
included
in
computing
his
income
for
the
year
by
virtue
of
section
6,
or
(ii)
rent
paid
by
him
for
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
rented
and
occupied
by
him,
or
the
fair
rental
value
of
a
residence
or
other
living
accommodation
owned
and
occupied
by
him,
during
the
year
but
not,
in
either
case,
exceeding
his
remuneration
from
his
office
or
employment
as
described
in
subparagraph
(i);
Paragraph
8(1
)(c)
was
last
amended
in
1956.
The
appellant
was
neither
a
member
of
the
clergy
nor
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
and
he
was
not
in
charge
of
nor
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation
within
the
meaning
of
8(1
)(c).
He
was
engaged
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
an
inner
city
not
for
profit,
inter
denominational
society
called
the
Hope
Mission
located
in
Edmonton,
Alberta,
its
primary
objects
being
to
minister
spiritually,
physically,
emotionally
and
socially
to
needy
people
and,
within
that
ministration,
to
spread
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ
in
accordance
with
the
mission's
objects
and
statement
of
faith.
Counsel
acting
for
each
party
described
the
issue
as
centering
on
whether
the
Hope
Mission
may
be
characterized
as
a
“religious
order".
Subsumed
therein
is
the
question
as
to
whether
the
appellant
may
be
viewed
as
a
"member
of
a
religious
order"
within
the
purview
of
the
fiscal
provision.
Respondent's
counsel
reiterated
that
the
deduction
was
denied
in
accordance
with
paragraph
5
of
the
reply
to
the
notice
of
appeal
which
states:
(a)
the
appellant
was
not
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
of
a
religious
order
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination;
(b)
the
appellant
was
not
in
charge
of,
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
denomination.
At
this
juncture
it
is
appropriate
to
note
that
the
terminology
employed
in
these
reasons
respecting
matters
of
"ministration"
connote
the
giving
of
care,
aid,
comfort
or
solace
in
its
broadest
sense
rather
than
merely
by
its
religious
colloquialism.
This
is
also
an
appropriate
place
to
recognize
respondent-counsel's
concession
that
the
evidence
given
in
the
case
supported
the
appellant's
contention
that
he
was
appointed
as
a
full-time
administrator
of
the
Hope
Mission,
that
he
had
exercised
that
function
and
that
he
was
also
involved
in
ministering
and
counselling
the
needy
who
attended
the
mission.
Counsel
submitted
that
while
the
mission
might
well
be
a
religious
place
and
organization
ministering
to
the
multifarious
needs
of
its
kind
of
attendees,
it
nevertheless
was
not
a
religious
order.
There
was
consensus
that
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
encompassed
a
two-fold
test
to
be
met
by
the
appellant.
One
relates
to
matters
of
his
status,
and
the
other
concerns
the
function
of
his
office
or
employment.
Counsel
agreed
that
the
mission's
chaplain,
Mr.
Doug
Green,
had
claimed
and
was
allowed
the
housing
allowance
under
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Act
without
any
reassessment
therefor.
Facts
No
evidence
was
called
by
the
Minister.
For
the
appellant,
viva
voce
evidence
was
given
by
the
appellant,
by
Mr.
Richard
H.
Jamieson
having
a
40-year
involvement
as
a
board
member,
and
by
Mr.
Bruce
Reith
being
the
mission's
executive
director
since
1985.
The
mission
was
founded
by
Reverend
and
Mrs.
Edwardson
in
September
of
1929.
It
was
formally
registered
as
a
society
in
April
of
1957,
its
objects
and
statement
of
faith,
respectively
being
as
follows
(Tab
A
of
Exhibit
A-1):
2.
The
objects
of
the
Society
are:
(a)
To
minister
spiritually,
physically
and
socially
to
needy
men,
women,
young
people
and
children,
in
particular,
and
without
restricting
the
generality
of
the
foregoing:
(i)
by
conducting
a
daily
gospel
mission
service
with
lunch
for
men.
(ii)
by
operating
mission,
rehabilitation
homes
and
farms,
youth
centres,
and
foster
homes.
(iii)
by
conducting
gospel,
worship
and
prayer
services,
Sunday
schools,
Bible
programs,
radio
and
television
programs.
(iv)
by
providing
food,
clothing,
furniture
and
shelter.
(v)
by
providing
personal
counselling.
(vi)
by
assisting
in
locating
employment.
(b)
To
spread
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ
by
all
such
means
as
the
society
may
deem
proper
and
expedient.
(c)
To
solicit
and
receive
donations
and
contributions
for
the
furtherance
of
the
objects
of
the
society,
and
to
act
as
a
clearing
house
for
such
designated
funds.
(d)
To
purchase,
take,
lease,
rent
or
otherwise
acquire
lands,
buildings,
easements
or
property
real
or
personal
which
may
be
required
for
use
in
connection
with
the
objects
of
the
society.
(e)
To
provide
all
necessary
equipment
and
furniture.
(f)
To
sell,
manage,
lease,
rent,
mortgage,
dispose
of
or
otherwise
deal
with
the
property
of
the
society.
(g)
To
draw,
make,
accept,
endorse,
discount,
execute
and
issue
cheques,
promissory
notes,
bills
of
exchange
and
other
negotiable
or
transferable
instrument.
(h)
To
borrow
money
for
the
purposes
of
the
society,
and
to
give
security
thereof
in
such
manner
as
it
thinks
fit.
3.
Statement
of
Faith
of
the
Society
(a)
The
Scriptures
of
the
Old
and
the
New
Testaments
are
inspired
by
God,
and
inerrant
in
the
original
writing,
and
are
of
supreme
and
final
authority
in
faith
and
life.
(b)
One
God
exists
eternally
in
three
persons:
Father,
Son
and
Holy
Spirit.
(c)
Jesus
Christ
was
begotten
by
the
Holy
Spirit,
born
of
the
Virgin
Mary,
and
is
true
God
and
true
Man.
(d)
Man
was
created
in
the
image
of
God.
He
sinned,
and
thereby
incurred
physical
and
spiritual
death;
and
all
human
beings
are
born
with
a
sinful
nature.
(e)
The
Lord
Jesus
Christ
died
for
our
sins
as
a
substitutionary
sacrifice,
and
all
who
in
repentance
receive
Him
by
faith
as
Saviour
and
Lord
are
justified
through
His
shed
blood,
being
born
again,
and
thereby
becoming
children
of
God,
and
indwelt
by
the
Holy
Spirit.
(f)
The
crucified
body
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
was
raised
from
the
dead,
He
ascended
into
Heaven,
and
lives
there
for
His
own
as
High
Priest
and
Advocate.
(g)
The
personal
and
imminent
return
of
Jesus
Christ
is
the
believer’s
hope.
(h)
The
dead
in
Christ
shall
be
resurrected
to
everlasting
blessedness;
the
lost,
to
everlasting
punishment.
The
mission’s
building
premises
are
now
relatively
new
and
are
located
in
an
inner
city
area.
It
conducts
no
businesses
nor
has
any
investments.
It
survives
on
donations
of
cash
and
kind
from
churches,
businesses
and
individuals
in
the
community
as
well
as
through
the
volunteer
work
rendered
by
many
individuals
and
26
churches
who
all
share
and
participate
in
the
mission's
statement
of
faith.
No
vows
are
taken,
but
participation
by
all
of
its
staff
and
volunteers
is
predicated
on
their
belief
in
and
practice
of
the
statement
of
faith
and
their
sharing
of
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ.
The
mission
is
Christian
in
its
delivery
of
religious
dogma
and
is
non-
denominational
in
its
delivery
of
other
holistic
ministrations.
Its
attendees
were
described
generally
as
society's
unwanted.
These
are
the
"street
people";
the
outcasts
and
down-and-outs.
Many
are
transients
or
street
wanderers
afflicted
by
mental
disorders
or
drug
addictions
and/or
are
back
on
the
street
after
serving
jail
terms.
Whether
clean
or
dirty,
they
are
welcome
at
the
mission
doors.
They
will
be
cleaned
up
if
needed,
clothed,
fed
and
counselled,
emotionally
as
well
as
spiritually.
Staff
and
volunteers
are
specially
present
to
do
this
during
the
evenings.
More
will
be
said
of
this
later.
The
mission
was
described
as
an
outreach,
holistic
type
of
organization
ministering
to
the
whole
needs
of
the
individual.
The
testimony
of
all
three
witnesses
was
to
the
effect
that
its
essential
underpinning
was
derived
from
its
statement
of
faith
so
as
to
spread
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ
to
all
its
attendees,
whether
via
group
functions,
music,
film
or
via
informal
gatherings
fostering
a
one-to-one
interaction.
The
mission
is
managed
by
a
board
of
directors,
each
of
whom
shares
its
statement
of
faith
and
practices
as
does
its
staff.
Its
executive
director,
Mr.
Reith,
has
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
administration.
He
received
two
years
of
missionary
training
in
the
U.S.A.,
received
a
diploma
from
the
Southern
Baptist
Convention
and
while
a
missionary
in
Rwanda,
South
Africa
became
interested
in
streetpeople,
inner-city
type
of
programs.
He
attends
and
teaches
Sunday
school
for
young
people
at
his
own
Baptist
church
having
its
own
minister
and
lay
pastors.
The
mission's
full-time
chaplain,
Mr.
Green,
is
a
graduate
of
Regent
College
in
Vancouver
and
of
the
North
American
Baptist
Seminary
in
Edmonton,
and
he
holds
a
master’s
degree
in
theological
studies.
Like
Mr.
Green,
Mr.
Reith
confirmed
that
he
too
had
since
1989
claimed
and
was
not
disallowed
the
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
housing
allowance.
Mr.
Jamieson's
long
and
devoted
service
to
the
community
through
the
mission
was
quintessentially
recognized
when
it
recently
took
over
and
managed,
according
to
its
own
objects
and
statement
of
faith,
a
then
secular
hostel
for
male
wayward
youths
(formerly
run
by
the
provincial
government)
which
was
thereafter
named
the
Jamieson
Centre.
It
is
four
times
larger
than
the
mission
and
is
staffed
by
three
full-time
chaplains
working
daily
who
deliver
bible
studies
and
chapel
services.
Also
provided
are
various
programs
similar
to
those
of
the
mission
described
as
holistic
in
scope,
the
underpinning
always
being
the
statement
of
faith
and
the
spreading
of
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ.
The
mission
operates
seven
days
a
week.
It
conducts
a
live-in
program
for
men
who
usually
are
recently
out
of
jail
and
have
been
referred
by
the
Attorney
General’s
department.
This
program
provides
three
months
of
bible-based
Christian
instruction
which
is
available
to
all
males
irrespective
of
their
previous
circumstances.
Only
an
appropriate
commitment
of
involvement
must
firstly
be
made.
The
mission's
chaplain,
Mr.
Green,
directs
this
program.
There
are
no
memberships
per
se
in
the
mission,
nor
are
any
vows
made
or
expected
to
be
given.
All
staff
and
volunteers
and
board
members
simply
are
already
in
sync
with
the
mission’s
objects
and
statement
of
faith
and,
apparently,
this
is
precisely
why
they
want
to
participate
in
the
mission’s
operations.
Mr.
Jamieson
testified
he
is
a
regular
attendee
of
his
own
church.
It
was
his
firm
belief
that
the
mission’s
"congregation"
are
not
the
kind
of
people
who
would
attend
or
feel
welcome
in
a
traditional
type
of
church.
He
said
he
was
convinced
the
mission
would
lose
its
Christian
community-based
support
(upon
which
it
is
totally
dependent)
involving
finances,
food,
clothing,
furniture
and
volunteering
if
it
failed
to
maintain
and
foster
its
objects
and
statement
of
faith.
Indeed
no
funds
had
been
asked
of
the
United
Way
because
of
its
fear
of
losing
its
long
established
reputation
and
nature
as
an
organization
of
Christian
faith.
He
confirmed
nonChristian
organizations
were
not
allowed
to
preach
in
the
mission.
A
compilation
of
the
testimony
of
the
three
witnesses
establishes
that
the
bulk
of
the
daily
operations
revolved
around
the
live-in
program,
and
that
its
front
door
was
open
from
8:00
a.m.
to
5:00
p.m.
following
which
entry
could
be
gained
at
the
rear
door
protected
by
a
security
guard.
Nightly
at
7:00
p.m.
the
preparation
for
the
evening
services
would
begin.
Staff,
participating
churches
and
volunteers
would
assist
in
delivery
of
the
gospel
message
and/or
in
the
making
and
serving
of
sandwiches,
beverages
etc.
Attendees
often
numbering
up
to
100
came
in
through
the
front
door.
The
evening
services
program
was:
7:30
Prayer
to
start
program
7:35
Sing
along
hymns
and
choruses
7:50
Testimonies
of
God's
saving
grace
7:55
Special
musical
renditions
8:00
Message
and
altar
call
Partaking
of
food,
general
social
interchange
and
crisis
counselling
by
staff
and
volunteers
followed
until
9:00
p.m.
Those
needing
further
counselling
were
asked
to
attend
the
next
day
when
referrals
to
other
organizations
such
as
welfare
and
employment
centres
or
alcohol
and
drug
abuse
centres
or
groups
could
be
made
as
well
as
hope
and
prayers
being
offered
in
a
spiritual
vein.
Visits
were
made
regularly
by
staff
to
hospitals
and
jails
and
sometimes
to
the
residence
of
a
known
attendee
if
needed.
Different
formats
are
employed
in
extending
its
religious
message
and
counselling
services
to
the
needy.
One
is
through
an
informal
gathering
of
some
80
to
100
people
every
Saturday
night
called
the
Coffee
House.
It
is
deliberately
without
any
program
or
structure
and
is
attended
by
staff
and
volunteers
essentially
to
deliver
the
message
of
the
gospel
in
the
context
of
a
listening-ear
and
friendship.
Coffee
and
pastries
are
donated.
It
was
hoped
that
the
Coffee
House
attendees
would
also
attend
the
regular
evening
services
program.
A
non-live-in
program
has
been
developed
for
women
and
children
via
a
Thursday
afternoon
drop-in
format
overseen
by
two
female
staff
employees.
Other
operational
formats
designed
to
attract
and
hold
its
attendees
include
its
well
known
(and
very
well
attended)
annual
summer
barbecue
and
Christmas
dinner.
An
annual
spring
dinner
is
held
essentially
for
all
the
mission's
supporters
and
potential
supporters
at
which
time
donations
in
all
of
its
aspects
are
actively
and
successfully
pursued.
The
spring
dinner
attendees
have
numbered
up
to
400.
All
three
witnesses
opined
that
the
Hope
Mission
is
essentially
a
mission
of
the
gospel
or
church
which
“fills
the
gap"
left
by
regular
churches.
All
did
recognize
however
that
attendees
often
came
only
for
the
food,
shelter
and
shared
friendship
found
there
and
not
necessarily
for
the
religious
part.
Mr.
Persaud
said
he
believed
many
come
not
only
to
seek
help
for
the
basic
necessities
to
survive
but
ultimately,
without
knowing
it,
do
seek
spiritual
assistance
as
well.
While
in
their
cross-
examination
Mr.
Persaud
and
Mr.
Reith
were
in
accord
that
the
mission
was
multifunctional
and
diverse
in
its
operations,
both
were
adamant
that
its
entire
program
and
existence
emanated
out
of
its
statement
of
faith
and
the
sharing
of
the
gospel.
Put
another
way,
it
is
a
religious
mission
of
hope
rather
than
merely
as
a
social
service
agency
with
religious
overtones.
Mr.
Reith
testified
the
mission’s
"heart"
was
its
statement
of
faith
notwithstanding
that
it
was
open
to
all
irrespective
of
their
religious
beliefs,
if
any.
In
his
words
it
was
a
church,
plus”.
Turning
now
to
Mr.
Persaud’s
employment
with
the
mission,
his
administrative
duties
included
organizing,
coordinating
and
attending
the
evening
services,
coffee
house
night,
the
annual
spring
dinner,
the
summer
barbecue
and
the
Christmas
dinner.
He
regularly
attended
participating
churches
to
maintain
and
seek
out
new
volunteers.
A
manager's
position
gained
in
1992
limited
his
outreach
activities.
He
now
focuses
on
the
day
and
evening
services
programs.
I
was
impressed
by
Mr.
Persaud’s
personal
involvement
with
the
mission's
attendees
and
the
genuine
care
and
concern
he
has
for
their
spiritual
and
bodily
well-being
which
went
far
beyond
his
administrative
duties.
His
examples
of
successful
outcomes
were
laden
with
sincere
emotion
and
were
characterized
as
miracles.
That
he
participates
fully
in
the
delivery
of
the
mission’s
objects,
statement
of
faith
and
in
the
spreading
of
the
gospel
was
patently
obvious
from
the
evidence.
Mr.
Persaud
is
from
Guyana.
He
is
47
years
of
age
and
has
a
diploma
in
Business
Administration
taken
at
Ryerson
Polytechnical
Institute
in
Toronto.
He
has
no
religious
training
apart
from
church
seminars
in
Bible
studies,
and
he
enjoys
no
religious
designation
by
any
religious
body.
In
1983
employment
with
the
Hope
Mission
as
an
administrative
assistant
was
taken
and
ne
lived
in
its
premises
until
1987
when
joined
by
his
wife
and
children.
I
believe
his
psychological
nature
may
be
described
as
"pastoral".
He
utilizes
this
aptitude
and
these
abilities
on
those
most
in
need.
This
occurs
through
his
jail
and
hospital
visits
and
his
crisis
counselling
during
evening
services
at
the
mission
and
he
may
conduct
some
part
of
the
evening
service
as
a
back-up
when
needed.
Analysis
Given
the
totality
of
the
evidence,
a
fair
and
objective
description
of
Hope
Mission’s
operations
is
that
it
goes
beyond
providing
the
immediate
food
and
shelter
needs
of
its
attendees
as
at
the
same
time
it
is
actively
attempting
to
foster
his
or
her
total
well-being
through
a
spiritual
awakening
by
virtue
of
the
sharing
of
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ.
The
former
is
not
perceived
or
intended
to
be
subservient
to
the
latter.
Both
move
in
tandem
as
the
scope
of
service
contemplates
the
concurrent
need
of
all
three
(physical,
mental
and
spiritual)
to
be
ministered
to.
In
this
sense
respondent's
counsel
is
correct
that
the
mission
is
a
very
religious
place
as
it
practices
holistically
the
Christian
ethic
of
love
and
caring.
Appellant's
counsel
submits
the
above
is
a
good
indicator
as
to
why
its
essential
nature
is
that
of
a
religious
order
or
church
having
only
an
unusual
kind
of
"congregation"
which
distinguishes
it
from
conventionally
known
churches
or
religious
orders.
In
this
vein
it
was
urged
that
the
appellant,
having
subscribed
to
the
mission's
statement
of
faith
and
having
participated
in
the
delivery
of
the
messages
of
the
gospel
of
Jesus
Christ,
is
a
“member”
of
the
mission
which
is
a
“religious
order".
The
relevant
words
of
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Act
are
repeated
for
convenience:
Where
the
taxpayer
is
a
member
of
the
clergy
or
of
a
religious
order
or
a
regular
minister
of
a
religious
denomination,
and
is
in
charge
of,
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
religious
denomination
This
provision
contemplates
two
things.
An
individual
must
be
[status]:
1.
a
member
of
the
clergy,
2.
a
member
of
a
religious
order,
or
3.
a
regular
Minister
of
a
religious
denomination
and
be
[function]:
1.
in
charge
of
or
ministering
to
a
diocese,
parish
or
congregation,
or
2.
engaged
exclusively
in
full-time
administrative
service
by
appointment
of
a
religious
order
or
religious
denomination.
Mr.
Persaud's
affirmation
of
the
statement
of
faith
enabled
him
to
assist
in
the
performance
of
his
non-administrative
type
of
activities
within
the
mission's
religious
framework.
These
activities,
done
on
an
ad
hoc
basis,
assisted
the
mission
in
the
delivery
of
its
statement
of
faith.
In
reality
he
had
a
deep
conviction
respecting
the
statement
of
faith
and
in
the
mission’s
holistic
ethic,
and
there
is
no
doubt
he
gave
his
all
within
that
dual
framework.
However
the
question
is
whether
Mr.
Persaud’s
belief
in
and
his
sharing
of
the
statement
of
faith
could
characterize
him
as
a
member
of
a
religious
order
in
the
sense
of
the
status
requirement
of
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Act.
According
to
a
rule
of
statutory
interpretation,
noscitur
a
sociis,
the
meaning
of
an
expression
may
be
determined
by
its
association
with
others
provided
there
is
a
distinct
genus
or
category
expressed
which
conveys
the
colour
or
meaning
to
be
attributed.
The
genus
within
paragraph
8(1
)(c)
of
the
Act
is
ecclesiastic.
The
tenancy
underlying
the
term
"religious
order"
is
that
its
members,
being
bound
by
the
taking
of
vows,
become
part
of
a
cohesive
group;
they
are
members
of
a
religious
community
as
distinct
from
a
secular
one.
More
is
said
about
this
infra.
Membership
implies
something
more
than
a
religious
belief
upon
which
a
master-servant
relationship
is
predicated.
This
was
recognized
by
Goetz,
J.T.C.C.
in
Small
v.
M.N.R.,
[1990]
2
C.T.C.
2286,
89
D.T.C.
663
(T.C.C.),
where,
in
dealing
with
whether
an
employee
of
the
Ontario
Bible
College
and
Ontario
Theological
Seminary
was
a
member
of
a
religious
order,
he
opined
(with
which
I
concur)
at
pages
2293-94
(D.T.C.
668):
Plainly,
the
term
does
not
extend
to
everyone
who
is
associated
in
some
capacity
with
a
religious
order.
Rather,
it
is
one
that
must
be
interpreted
ejusdem
generis
with
both
member
of
the
clergy
and
regular
minister.
.
.
.
[I]n
order
to
meet.
.
.the
status
test,
an
individual
must
in
fact
have
some
sort
of
status
which
distinguishes
him
from
the
other
members
of
his
faith
and
merely
subscribing
to
a
common
set
of
beliefs,
such
as
the
College’s
statement
of
faith,
does
not
achieve
this
end.
Further,
he
found
the
College’s
doctrinal
statement
of
faith
embodied
principles
of
basic
Judea-Christian
beliefs
shared
by
most
members
of
society
in
its
diverse
forms
which
is
also
the
case
here.
At
page
2297
(D.T.C.
671),
he
held
(also
with
which
I
concur)
that:
.
.
.a
religious
order
is
a
group
of
people
who
although
homogeneous
vis-à-vis
themselves
can
nonetheless
be
distinguished
from
a
larger
laity.
In
ordinary
terms
they
are
members
of
a
religious
community
as
distinct
from
a
secular
one.
The
Hope
Mission
is
a
Christian
organization
supported
by
inter
alia
26
churches
that
volunteer
help
and
gifts.
The
mission's
nightly
evening
worship
was
conducted
by
Mr.
Green
and
others
as
well
as
the
religious
leaders
of
those
churches.
Non-Christian
organizations
or
individuals
were
not
allowed
to
come
and
preach.
Mr.
Jamieson
and
Mr.
Reith
belonged
to
and
attended
their
own
Baptist
church.
Those
attending
the
mission's
premises
and
functions
did
so
for
various
and
diverse
purposes
and
needs,
spirituality
or
religion
on
their
part
was
essentially
irrelevant.
Further,
while
the
mission’s
object
and
purpose
is
the
delivery
of
a
holistic
approach
of
which
religion
is
its
core
component,
its
activities
are
not
exclusively
religious
so
as
to
be
characterized
as
a
religious
order.
In
Wipf
et
al
v.
M.N.R.,
[1973]
C.T.C.
761,
73
D.T.C.
5558
(F.C.T.D.),
the
case
involved
members
of
a
Hutterite
colony
who
averred
they
were
members
of
a
religious
order
notwithstanding
that
they
were
engaged
in
both
religious
and
secular
(farming)
activities.
At
page
772
(D.T.C.
5566)
the
view
of
the
Court
was
that:
Since
the
objects
or
purposes
of
each
colony
are
not
exclusively
religious
they
cannot
be,
in
my
opinion,
“religious
orders"
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
27(2)
[now
110(2)]
of
the
Act.
.
.
.
This
reasoning
was
adopted
by
Goetz,
J.
in
Small,
supra,
at
page
2293
(D.T.C.
668)
and
he
follows
that
by
saying:
One
again,
this
is
consistent
with
the
definitions
found
in
various
dictionaries.
For
example,
the
Collins
Dictionary
of
the
English
Language,
2nd
edition,
defines
"religious
order"
as
follows:
A
group
of
persons
who
bind
themselves
by
vows
in
order
to
devote
themselves
to
the
pursuit
of
religious
aims.
[Emphasis
in
original.]
The
term
is
further
defined
by
the
Oxford
English
Dictionary
in
this
way:
A
body
or
society
of
persons
living
by
common
consent
under
the
same
religious,
moral,
or
social
regulations
and
discipline;
especially,
a
monastic
society
or
fraternity:
as
an
order
of
monks
or
friars,
the
Benedictine
or
Franciscan
order.
In
reviewing
current
definitions
for
the
terms
"order"
and
"religious",
it
appears
the
ordinary
meanings
of
those
words
have
not
changed.
The
Webster's
Ninth
New
Collegiate
Dictionary,
(1986)
defines
"order"
as:
1.a:
group
united
in
a
formal
way:
as
(1):
a
fraternal
society
([e.g.]
the
Masonic
order),
(2):
a
community
under
a
religious
rule,
esp.
one
requiring
members
to
take
solemn
vows
3a:
a
rank,
class
or
special;
group
in
a
community
or
society.
The
Concise
Oxford
Dictionary,
8th
edition,
defines
"order"
to
be:
.
.
.9
(esp.
Order)
a
fraternity
of
monks
and
friars,
or
formerly
of
knights,
bound
by
a
common
rule
or
life
(the
Franciscan
order;
the
order
of
the
Templars)
18.a
Masonic
or
similar
fraternity.
and
defines
“religious”
as:
adi.1.
devoted
to
religion,
pious,
devout.
2.
of
or
concerned
with
religion.
3.
of
or
belonging
to
a
monastic
order.
.
.
n.
a
person
bound
by
monastic
vows.
Therefore
in
its
common
and
ordinary
parlance
"order"
contemplates
its
members
being
united
in
a
formal
way.
Although
there
is
a
statement
of
faith
of
the
mission,
simply
to
be
a
Christian
is
to
espouse
these
self-same
beliefs.
This
sharing
does
not
unite
Christians
in
a
formal
way
in
a
manner
of
a
vow.
In
my
view
this
threshold
has
not
been
met
by
the
mission
so
as
to
be
characterized
as
a
religious
"order".
Hope
Mission’s
holistic
ministrations
to
the
needs
of
its
congregation
is
indeed
commendable.
Unfortunately
however
Parliament
has
excluded
lay
persons
such
as
Mr.
Persaud
from
qualifying
for
the
residence
deduction.
For
the
reasons
given,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content