Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue)

Last updated
Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue)
Court Federal Court of Appeal
Full case nameChurch of Atheism of Central Canada v Minister of National Revenue
Decided29 November 2019 (2019-11-29)
Citation(s)2019 FCA 296
Case opinions
Atheism is not a religion and not eligible for charity status
Decision by Justice Rivoalen
Concurrence Justice Nadon
Justice Rennie
Keywords
religious charity

Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue) 2019 FCA 296 (CanLII) [1] is a 2019 Federal Court of Appeal case in Canada. It was brought by the Church of Atheism of Central Canada against the Canada Revenue Agency after the Minister of National Revenue rejected their application for religious charitable status. [2] The court determined on a unanimous verdict that atheism is not a religion and not eligible for tax-exempt charity status. [3]

Contents

Background

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada was a registered non-profit organisation in Ottawa. They applied under the Income Tax Act, 1985 for the status of a charity, which would have allowed all their income to be tax-free under Canadian law. The Minister of National Revenue rejected their application on the grounds that they did not meet the statutory definition of a charity under the act. The Church of Atheism appealed the decision on the grounds of religious discrimination and alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982. [1]

Case

The case was heard to decide if there was a violation of the rights and freedoms of the Church and if the Minister's decision was reasonable. The court mentioned there was no clear definition of a charity in statute, so the court relied upon Canadian common law which had found that a charity either was involved in "the advancement of religion" or "certain other purposes beneficial to the community". [1] The court ruled that as the Church was a non-profit, they were not individuals so were not entitled to equality protection. They further found that the rights of atheists were protected and that the Minister declining to grant the Church charitable status did not interfere with their practices. [1]

The court then considered if the rejection was reasonable. The Church claimed that atheism was a religion and that they believed in "The Ten Commandments of Energy" as a sacred text. [3] [4] However, the court found that atheism was not a religion as it failed to meet the common law criteria to be religion and stated worshipping energy did not count as belief in a Supreme Being or Deity. [2] However the court did not rule on if a religion needed to have an authoritative text such as the Bible in Christianity nor that there had to be a belief in God after The Church cited Buddhism as a recognised religion that did not believe in a higher power. [5] The Church had also argued that under the "certain other purposes" definition, they were a religious self-help group. The court rejected this argument as they found that the group only helped its own members and was not "rehabilitative or therapeutic". [1] As a result, the court ruled that the Minister's rejection was justified as the Church of Atheism lacked a charitable purpose and did not carry out charitable activities. In a unanimous decision with all three judges concurring, Justice Marianne Rivoalen ruled that the appeal was to be dismissed. [5]

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

On January 28, 2020, the Church filed an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that the cases raises issues of public importance and of central importance to the legal system, specifically the state's duty of neutrality. [6] The Supreme Court dismissed the application on October 29, 2020. [7]

Related Research Articles

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charitable organization</span> Nonprofit organization with charitable purpose

A charitable organization or charity is an organization whose primary objectives are philanthropy and social well-being.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quebec Court of Appeal</span>

The Court of Appeal of Quebec is the highest judicial court in Quebec, Canada. It hears cases in Quebec City and Montreal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gordon F. Henderson</span> Canadian lawyer (1912–1993)

Gordon Fripp Henderson, was a Canadian intellectual property lawyer who joined the law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP in 1937, and later became its chairman. He was known for his advocacy on intellectual property matters as well as his involvement in intellectual property organizations throughout his career. Henderson's contribution to the development of Canadian and international jurisprudence is described as one of the most significant in Canadian legal history.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

A Henson trust, in Canadian law, is a type of trust designed to benefit disabled persons. Specifically, it protects the assets of the disabled person, as well as the right to collect government benefits and entitlements.

<i>Privacy Act</i> (Canada) Canadian federal legislation (1983)

The Privacy Act is the federal information-privacy legislation of Canada that came into effect on July 1, 1983. Administered by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Act sets out rules for how institutions of the Government of Canada collect, use, disclose, retain, and dispose of personal information of individuals.

<i>Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of procedures for determining the reasonableness of a security certificate and for reviewing detention under a certificate. The Court held that the security certificate process, which prohibited the named individual from examining evidence used to issue the certificate, violated the right to liberty and habeas corpus under section 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter. The Court however rejected the appellant arguments that the extension of detentions violated the right against indefinite detention, that the differential treatment violated equality rights, and that the detention violated the rule of law. As remedy, the Court declared the "judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention" to be of no force and effect, striking down articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but suspended the ruling for one year.

A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. It is one of the 29 types of 501(c) nonprofit organizations in the US.

Imre Finta was the first person prosecuted under Canada's war crimes legislation. He was charged in 1987 and acquitted in 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientology status by country</span> Legal status of Scientology

Recognition of Scientology and the Church of Scientology varies from country to country with respect to state recognition for religious status, charitable status, or tax exempt status. Decisions are contingent upon the legal constructs of each individual country, and results are not uniform worldwide. For example, the absence of a clear definition for 'religion' or 'religious worship' has resulted in unresolved and uncertain status for Scientology in some countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Cromwell (jurist)</span> Canadian judge (born 1952)

Thomas Albert Cromwell is a Canadian jurist and former Puisne Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada. After eleven years on the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Cromwell was nominated to succeed Michel Bastarache and occupy the seat traditionally reserved for Atlantic provinces on the Supreme Court of Canada by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and assumed office on December 22, 2008. Cromwell retired in September 2016, and was succeeded by Malcolm Rowe.

A charitable organization in Canada is regulated under the Canadian Income Tax Act through the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

<i>Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc is the first ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with issues involving transfer pricing and how they are treated under the Income Tax Act of Canada ("ITA").

<i>R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal</i>

R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal and another was a court case heard by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which was instrumental in determining whether the Church of Scientology was to be considered a bona fide religion in England and Wales, and by extension what defines a religion in English law. The case, heard in 1969–70, focused on the question of whether a chapel at the Scientologists' UK headquarters should be registered as a meeting place for religious worship under an 1855 law. The Church's initial application was refused and it appealed the case to the courts, arguing that Scientology was a genuine religion and that it used the chapel for religious purposes. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that Scientology's practices "did not reveal any form whatever of worship". Ten years later, the Segerdal ruling was drawn upon to define a religion for the purposes of English common law as requiring "faith in a god and worship of that god". The Segerdal ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 who redefined the term "religion" in a modern context and ruled that Scientology is to be recognised as a religion in the UK.

Law and religion is the interdisciplinary study of relationships between law, especially public law, and religion. Over a dozen scholarly organizations and committees focussing on law and religion were in place by 1983, and a scholarly quarterly, the Journal of Law and Religion, was first published that year. The Ecclesiastical Law Journal began publication in 1987. The Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion was founded in 1999. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion was founded in England in 2012.

<i>Guindon v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2018. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2019. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.

<i>Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act</i> Canadian law

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is a Canadian federal law establishing a set of minimum national standards for carbon pricing in Canada to meet emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. It was passed as Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 – an omnibus budget bill – during the 42nd Parliament of Canada. The law came into force immediately upon receiving royal assent on June 21, 2018.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "Church of Atheism of Central Canada v Canada (National Revenue)". Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  2. 1 2 Proctor, Jason (2019-12-05). "Is atheism a religion? The Ministry of National Revenue is a non-believer". CBC. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  3. 1 2 "Canadian Church of Atheism denied charitable status after court finds it's not a religion". Fox News. 2019-12-07. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  4. ↑ "Church of Atheism might worship science, but it is not a religion, court decides". National Post. 2019-12-05. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  5. 1 2 "Church of Atheism denied charitable status as court finds it isn't a religion". CTV News. 2019-12-05. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  6. ↑ "Judgments in Leave Applications". SCC Cases (Lexum). Retrieved 2020-10-29.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Docket - 39180". SCC Cases (Lexum). Retrieved 2020-10-29.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.