Date: 20220609  
Docket: A-436-19  
Citation: 2022 FCA 108  
CORAM:  
GAUTHIER J.A.  
GLEASON J.A.  
LOCKE J.A.  
BETWEEN:  
COLEL CHABAD LUBAVITCH FOUNDATION OF ISRAEL  
Appellant  
and  
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE  
Respondent  
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on December 14, 2021.  
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 9, 2022.  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:  
CONCURRED IN BY:  
GLEASON J.A.  
GAUTHIER J.A.  
LOCKE J.A.  
Date: 20220609  
Docket: A-436-19  
Citation: 2022 FCA 108  
CORAM:  
GAUTHIER J.A.  
GLEASON J.A.  
LOCKE J.A.  
BETWEEN:  
COLEL CHABAD LUBAVITCH FOUNDATION OF ISRAEL  
Appellant  
and  
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE  
Respondent  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  
GLEASON J.A.  
[1]  
In this appeal, brought under paragraph 172(3)(a.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985,  
c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the ITA), the appellant seeks to have this Court set aside the October 22, 2019  
Notice of Confirmation issued by the Minister of National Revenue and the earlier Notice of  
Intention to Revoke, issued on December 19, 2016, that was confirmed in the Notice of  
Confirmation. The effect of the Notice of Intention to Revoke will be to revoke the appellant’s  
Page: 2  
registration as a charitable organization for the purposes of the ITA once the Notice is published  
in the Canada Gazette.  
[2]  
I.  
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss this appeal, with costs.  
Background  
[3]  
Given the various arguments raised by the appellant, it is necessary to review the relevant  
factual background in some detail. For ease of reading, the relevant provisions in the ITA  
mentioned in these Reasons are reproduced in the attached Appendix.  
[4]  
The appellant was incorporated as a charitable organization on June 9, 1993. Its main  
objects were stated as being to: (1) provide buildings for the use of synagogues to conduct  
services and teach children in accordance with the Jewish faith; (2) provide scholarships for  
students to attend schools that teach Jewish studies; and (3) receive and maintain a fund or funds  
and to apply them from time to time to help attain one of the first two stated objectives. On  
October 7, 1993, the Minister registered the appellant as a charitable organization, with an  
effective date of June 9, 1993.  
[5]  
In its T3010 Registered Charity Information Returns for the 2003 to 2007 fiscal periods,  
the appellant stated that its activities consisted of providing scholarship assistance to students to  
attend courses in Israel, providing information about Jewish holidays throughout Canada and,  
Page: 3  
beginning in 2007, providing poverty relief to needy people in Israel. Some of these activities  
were not consistent with the appellant’s objectives.  
[6]  
The appellant was subject to two audits by the Charities Directorate (the Directorate) of  
the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).The first audit took place between April 2006 and August  
2007 and covered the 2003 and 2004 fiscal periods. It identified several areas of non-compliance,  
namely:  
conduct of activities that were not consistent with the appellant’s objects;  
failure to keep documents identifying scholarship recipients and their incomes;  
failure to properly document the relationship with the appellant’s agent in Israel;  
errors in the appellant’s information returns in not accurately reporting the salary  
received by one of its directors;  
making loans to a director and others in contravention of the appellant’s objects;  
failure to maintain proper books and records with respect to travel expenses for a  
director; and  
failure to issue T4 or T4A slips and provide the CRA with information in respect  
of payments made to persons employed for fundraising activities.  
Page: 4  
[7]  
On May 29, 2007, the appellant executed a Compliance Agreement in which the  
appellant agreed:  
not to undertake activities in contravention of its objects unless a request to  
modify them were approved by the Directorate;  
to send all scholarships directly to students and to document the provision of  
them in accordance with details prescribed in the Compliance Agreement;  
to sign the T1240 Registered Charity Adjustment Request form;  
not to lend money to those in need until its objects and activities allowed;  
not to provide monthly travel allowances to individuals who undertook activities  
on behalf of the appellant and to instead directly pay travel expenses related to  
the appellant’s charitable activities; and  
to keep records of all individuals who received more than $500 annually for  
part-time work and to issue a T4 or T4A for such work.  
[8]  
Following the execution of the Compliance Agreement by the appellant, the Directorate  
wrote to the appellant on June 13, 2007 to confirm the receipt and acceptance of the Agreement.  
In its June 13, 2007 letter, the Directorate also noted that the audit that gave rise to the  
Compliance Agreement did “not cover the full scope of [the appellant’s] operation and it [was]  
possible that an audit at some future time could cover the same period” (Appeal Book Vol. III, p.  
349).  
Page: 5  
The first audit was conducted by an auditor named Mr. Jean Dion. During the course of  
[9]  
his audit, Mr. Dion consulted with five other employees who worked in the Directorate. One of  
them was Mr. Daniel Racine. The documents before the Court indicate that the role of Mr.  
Racine during the first audit was limited to:  
sending Mr. Dion a copy of the appellant’s 2004 Registered Charity Information  
Return;  
providing advice on the required documentation relating to selection criteria and  
recipients of the scholarships given by the appellant;  
reviewing documents regarding the appellant’s formula to determine scholarship  
amounts;  
advising on tax withholdings required to be made from the scholarship payments  
made by the appellant;  
reviewing the appellant’s representations with respect to the proper  
documentation required in respect of the scholarships;  
reviewing a draft of the first letter to the appellant, outlining the compliance  
issues;  
reviewing the draft compliance agreement; and  
advising Mr. Dion on the recourses available to the appellant if the Minister did  
not agree with the appellant’s representations.  
Page: 6  
[10] Following the execution of the Compliance Agreement, the appellant sought and obtained  
the approval of the Directorate for a modification of its objects to allow for provision of  
assistance to needy people in Israel. In connection with this modification, the Directorate advised  
the appellant that [c]haritable organizations may not directly provide cash (funds) to non-  
qualified donees, in this case the poor [in Israel]…” but could provide them with furniture and  
clothing as the appellant proposed (Appeal Book Vol. III, p. 376). In response, the appellant  
advised the Directorate that its intent was to send money to an agent in Israel (Rabbi Moshe  
Shmuel Deutsch), who, in turn, would use the funds to purchase food for the needy and to run a  
soup kitchen. The appellant provided the Directorate with an agency agreement in which Rabbi  
Deutsch undertook to use the funds in this fashion and, on the strength of these representations,  
the Directorate approved these activities being undertaken by the appellant.  
[11] In August 2011, the Directorate again selected the appellant for an audit, which initially  
concerned its 2008 and 2009 fiscal periods but was later extended to the appellant’s 2003 to 2009  
fiscal periods. Mr. Dion conducted the second audit. Mr. Racine was not involved in the second  
audit.  
[12] The only issue uncovered during the second audit in respect of the appellant’s 2003 and  
2004 taxation years (the years that had been previously audited) related to the appellant’s  
participation in a donation scheme. More specifically, during the course of the second audit, the  
Directorate obtained evidence that indicated that the appellant had been engaged in a scheme  
through which it issued receipts for amounts well in excess of monies actually donated, thereby  
facilitating claims by the donor for charitable credits to which the donor was not entitled.  
Page: 7  
[13] During the second audit, the Directorate also noted several other areas of non-compliance  
with the Compliance Agreement that the appellant had signed and with the requirements of the  
ITA in respect of taxation years subsequent to 2004.  
[14] Mr. Dion sent two fairness letters to the appellant, outlining the various concerns  
uncovered during the second audit. These letters, sent in November 2013 and January 2016,  
listed the following areas of non-compliance:  
issuance of donation receipts over the 2003 to 2007 period where a partial gift  
was made by a donor, Dr. Lorne Sokol, through which he was given receipts for  
approximately $3.5 million but approximately 80-90% thereof was remitted back  
to him by the appellant via a corporation registered in Belize, the Moshe Shmuel  
Deitsch Corp;  
failure of the appellant to devote all of its resources to charitable purposes and  
activities outside of Canada in 2008 and 2009 in that:  
the appellant could not demonstrate that nearly $600,000.00 was actually  
paid to purchase food and clothing for needy people in Israel as there were  
no documents to adequately support such payments;  
the appellant’s agent in Israel, Rabbi Deutsch, distributed approximately  
$39,000.00 to other individuals, purportedly to have them provide assistance  
to needy individuals, but there were no agency agreements with these  
individuals;  
Page: 8  
the appellant distributed an additional approximate amount of $31,000.00 to  
an organization in Israel but could not demonstrate that the funds donated  
directly achieved a charitable purpose;  
failure to maintain adequate books and records related to the travel expenses of  
one of the appellant’s directors, Rabbi Zalman Zirkind, and related to the  
appellant’s fundraising activities over the period from 2007 to 2009; and  
failure to file accurate information returns in 2008 and 2009 by misreporting the  
salary paid to one of the appellant’s directors and in respect of payments made to  
those engaged in telephone solicitations.  
[15] Mr. Dion also expressed concern in the second fairness letter that the appellant had  
falsified the minutes of its board of directorsmeetings for 2009 and 2010. The appellant had  
provided copies of these minutes to the Directorate during the audit. The individuals the  
appellant claimed were directors told the Directorate that they had no active involvement with  
the appellant or knowledge of the meetings. One of them in addition confirmed that he did not  
attend either of the two meetings that the minutes stated he attended.  
[16] Following a meeting with the appellant’s representatives and review of the evidence and  
the appellant’s representations, the Directorate issued a Notice of Intention to Revoke the  
appellant’s registration as a charitable organization on December 19, 2016. The Notice was  
signed by Mr. Tony Manconi, the Director General of the Directorate. In the Notice, Mr.  
Page: 9  
Manconi advised that the CRA had concluded that the appellant was not complying with the  
requirements of the ITA because the appellant:  
failed to issue donation receipts in accordance with the ITA by issuing official  
donation receipts where a partial gift was made;  
failed to devote all of its charitable resources to its own charitable activities,  
notably by gifting funds to non-qualified donees;  
failed to maintain adequate books and records;  
failed to file accurate information returns as required by the ITA;  
had no active board of directors; and  
had misrepresented its fundraising solicitations.  
[17] The appellant filed a Notice of Objection to the Notice of Intention to Revoke. Mr.  
Racine, who was by then assigned to the Tax and Charities Appeals Directorate (the Appeals  
Directorate), was assigned as the appeals officer. Following his review of the audit findings of  
the Directorate and the appellant’s Notice of Objection, Mr. Racine issued a letter on March 6,  
2019, in which he stated:  
We have reviewed the CD’s [i.e., the Directorate’s] audit findings and the  
information submitted by the Foundation with its objection. We agree with the  
decision of the CD to issue the [the Notice of Intention to Revoke] in accordance  
with subsection 168(1) and 149.1(2) of the [ITA] because of the following non-  
compliance issues. (Appeal Book Vol. I, p.61)  
Page: 10  
[18] The letter then went on to enumerate the grounds for revocation. These were:  
paragraph 168(1)(b) of the ITA - ceased to comply with the requirements of the  
ITA for registration via participation in the donation scheme;  
paragraph 168(1)(b) of the ITA - ceased to comply with the requirements of the  
ITA for registration by not having direction and control over the activities  
undertaken in Israel and thus not devoting the appellant’s resources to its own  
charitable activities;  
paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA - failure to file an information return as required  
under the ITA by allocating charitable expenditures that were not its own;  
paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA failure to file an information return as required  
under the ITA by not correctly allocating fundraising expenditures;  
paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA failure to file an information return as required  
under the ITA by not accurately listing the names of the appellant’s directors;  
paragraph 168(1)(d) of the ITA issuing a receipt for a gift that did not comply  
with the ITA and its Regulations or that contained false information because by  
the charity ultimately received only 10%-20% of the receipted amount;  
paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA failure to comply with subsection 230(2) of the  
ITA through a failure to keep information in such a form as will enable the  
Minister to determine whether there are grounds for the revocation of its  
Page: 11  
registration by having insufficient documentation for activities undertaken  
overseas;  
paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA failure to comply with subsection 230(2) of the  
ITA through a failure to keep information in such a form as will enable the  
Minister to determine whether there are grounds for the revocation of its  
registration by not providing supporting documentation for travel and  
fundraising expenditures;  
paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA failure to comply with subsection 230(2) of the  
ITA through a failure to keep information in such a form as will enable the  
Minister to determine whether there are grounds for the revocation of its  
registration by providing minutes of board meetings that were inaccurate;  
paragraph 149.1(2)(c) of the ITA the making of disbursements by way of a gift  
to a non-qualified donee; and  
subsection 230(2) of the ITA failure to file an information return as required  
under the ITA due to the foregoing issues.  
[19] The appellant was provided a final chance to make submissions in response to Mr.  
Racine’s letter. After review of them, the Appeals Directorate determined that the additional  
submissions did not adequately respond to the concerns raised in the Notice of Intention to  
Revoke. On October 22, 2019, the Minister issued a Notice of Confirmation to the appellant,  
Page: 12  
confirming ten grounds for revocation of the appellant’s registration as a charitable organization,  
namely:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
The appellant participated in a donation scheme in which 80-90% of the funds  
received were returned to Dr. Sokol and not used for charitable purposes  
(paragraph 168(1)(b) of the ITA);  
The appellant did not have direction and control over the activities undertaken  
in Israel and Belize, and thus did not devote its resources to its own charitable  
activities (paragraph 168(1)(b) of the ITA);  
The appellant failed to file an information return as required under the ITA by  
allocating charitable expenditures for activities that were not its own (paragraph  
168(1)(c) of the ITA);  
The appellant failed to file an information return as required under the ITA by  
not correctly allocating fundraising expenditures related to Rabbi Zirkind’s  
salary (paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA);  
The appellant failed to file an information return as required under the ITA by  
not listing accurately the names of its directors (paragraph 168(1)(c) of the  
ITA);  
The appellant issued receipts for a gift otherwise than in accordance with the  
ITA and the Regulations or that contain false information, as it issued official  
Page: 13  
donation receipts while receiving only 10-20% of the receipted amount  
(paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA);  
7.  
The appellant failed to comply with subsection 230(2) of the ITA because it  
failed to keep information in such form as will enable the Minister to determine  
whether there are any grounds for the revocation of its registration by having  
insufficient supporting documentation for activities undertaken overseas  
(paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA);  
8.  
The appellant failed to comply with subsection 230(2) of the ITA because it  
failed to keep information in such form as will enable the Minister to determine  
whether there are any grounds for the revocation of its registration by not  
providing supporting documentation for travel and fundraising expenditures  
(paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA);  
9.  
The appellant failed to comply with subsection 230(2) of the ITA because it  
failed to keep information in such form as will enable the Minister to determine  
whether there are any grounds for the revocation of its registration by providing  
minutes of board meetings which were inaccurate (paragraph 168(1)(e) of the  
ITA); and,  
10.  
The appellant made a gift to a non-qualified donee (paragraph 149.1(2)(c) of the  
ITA).  
Page: 14  
[20] The Notice of Confirmation was signed by Mr. Isaac Piotrkowski, Manager of the  
Appeals Directorate.  
[21] On November 19, 2019, the appellant appealed to this Court.  
II.  
Issues  
[22] In its memorandum of fact and law, the appellant challenges each of the bases for  
revocation upon which the Minister relied. The appellant also asserts that there is a reasonable  
apprehension of bias arising from the involvement of Mr. Racine in the first audit and his  
assignment as the appeals officer in the appeal from the Notice of Intention to Revoke that was  
issued as a consequence of the second audit. The appellant focused its oral submissions before  
this Court on the bias argument.  
[23] The appellant makes two inter-connected submissions in respect of bias. It first asserts  
that the dual role played by Mr. Racine as part of the first audit and as the appeals officer in  
respect of the findings made following the second audit violated the principle that an  
administrative decision-maker should not sit in appeal from a decision the decision-maker was  
involved in making. Second, the appellant asserts that the roles played by Mr. Racine in the first  
audit and in the appeal from the Notice of Intention to Revoke violated the appellant’s legitimate  
expectations based on statements contained in the CRA’s Appeals Manual and in the Taxpayer  
Bill of Rights, which are publicly available documents.  
Page: 15  
[24] The Appeals Manual provided in relevant part that “…appeals officers must not work on  
files with which they were involved when they were in a different work section (for example, the  
appeals officer was the auditor on that file)(Canada Revenue Agency, Appeals Manual 2015-  
03” March 2015 at para. 1.1). The relevant section in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, published on  
the CRA website, states that “[t]he officer responsible for handling your file will not have been  
involved with the original decision under dispute(Canada Revenue Agency, RC17(E) Rev. 20,  
Taxpayer Bill of Rights(last modified April 8, 2021) at section 4).  
[25] The appellant’s other arguments, directed to the merits of the Minister’s decision and set  
out in its memorandum of fact and law, may be summarized as follows.  
[26] In relation to the donation scheme, the appellant argues that the Minister could not  
conclude that it participated simply because the appellant was unable to demonstrate to the  
Minister’s satisfaction that it did not take part in the scheme. Further, it suggests that because the  
conclusion comes from the “fraudster himself”, the evidence from Dr. Sokol is unreliable. As  
such, the appellant argues that the Minister made an error of law in concluding that the appellant  
participated in a donation scheme. The appellant also submits that the Minister erred in law in  
concluding that it issued donation receipts including false information because the appellant  
issued the donation receipts in good faith based on the information available at the time of their  
issuance.  
[27] Next, in relation to the revocation of the appellant’s registration due to its failure to have  
direction and control over its activities in Israel, the appellant argues that the Compliance  
Page: 16  
Agreement governed the appellant’s obligations going forward. According to the appellant, the  
Minister therefore erred in law in relying on activities that were occurring prior to the execution  
of the Compliance Agreement as a basis for revocation in respect of the continuation of these  
activities in later years. The appellant further argues that the Minister’s findings were in near-  
complete disregard of the evidence submitted by it and of the context in which the appellant’s  
activities were undertaken in Israel. The appellant says that the Minister therefore made a  
palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding that the appellant did not maintain direction  
and control over its activities in Israel in 2008 and 2009.  
[28] In relation to the charitable information returns, the appellant argues that the Minister  
made an error of law in concluding that the appellant did not accurately list the names of its  
directors in them because in 2008 and 2009 the individuals it listed as directors were de jure  
directors even though they had minimal involvement with the appellant. The appellant also  
argues that Rabbi Zirkind was involved in the daily operations of the appellant, so there is no  
reason why his salary should be considered a fundraising expense and that the Minister made a  
reviewable factual error in concluding otherwise.  
[29] The appellant further argues that the Minister made a palpable and overriding error of  
fact in concluding that it submitted inaccurate minutes of board meetings. It maintains that the  
Directorate did not seek additional evidence from Mr. Abraham Neuwirth, one of the directors  
whose involvement was in issue, and that its failure to do so constitutes a reviewable error. The  
appellant also suggests that the Directorate ought to have followed up with Mr. Meir Man, the  
other director, after he cancelled a planned meeting.  
Page: 17  
[30] The appellant next contends that the Minister cannot revoke its registration for any  
alleged insufficient reporting documentation for activities undertaken abroad prior to the  
signature of the Compliance Agreement. The appellant also says that the Minister’s conclusions  
that the appellant had insufficient documentation were based on improper inferences. The  
appellant finally submits that the reporting problems the Directorate found are an insufficient  
basis for revocation of the appellant’s registration as a charitable organization.  
III.  
Analysis  
[31] In accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and  
Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at para. 37, and, as this Court recently  
confirmed in Ark Angel Fund v. Canada (National Revenue), 2020 FCA 99 at para. 4 [Ark Angel  
Fund], the normal appellate standards of review apply to this appeal as it is a statutory appeal.  
Therefore, errors of law are reviewable for correctness and errors of fact or of mixed fact and law  
from which a legal issue cannot be extricated are reviewable for palpable and overriding error  
(Ark Angel Fund at paras. 4-5 and Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235  
[Housen]).  
[32] The appellant’s bias allegations raise an issue of law (Canadian Pacific  
Railway Company v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2021 FCA 69 at paras. 46-47,  
citing Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, [2019]  
1 F.C.R. 121 at para. 54; Gulia v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 106 at para. 9).  
Page: 18  
[33] All the appellant’s other arguments, on the other hand, raise questions of fact. Contrary to  
what the appellant says, each of its challenges to the Minister’s grounds for issuing the Notice of  
Confirmation and Notice of Intention to Revoke involve challenges to factual determinations that  
the appellant wishes this Court to overturn. The standard of review applicable to each of the  
appellant’s challenges to these determinations is that of palpable and overriding error (Housen at  
para. 10).  
[34] The test for setting aside a decision for palpable and overriding error is an exacting one.  
An error is only palpable if it is obvious or plainly seen and only overriding if it affects the result  
reached. As stated by this Court in Canada v. South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165,  
431 N.R. 286 at para. 46:  
Palpable and overriding error is a highly deferential standard of  
review: H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R.  
401; Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services 2006 37566 (ONCA), (2006)  
217 O.A.C. 269 (C.A.) at paragraphs 158-159; Waxman, supra. “Palpable” means  
an error that is obvious. “Overriding” means an error that goes to the very core of  
the outcome of the case. When arguing palpable and overriding error, it is not  
enough to pull at leaves and branches and leave the tree standing. The entire tree  
must fall.  
[35] I turn now to address the appellant’s arguments under the above-described standards of  
review.  
Page: 19  
A.  
Does Mr. Racine’s involvement in the first audit give rise to a reasonable apprehension  
of bias?  
[36] The test applicable to the assessment of an allegation of bias like the one made in this  
case is well known and involves asking, “what would an informed person, viewing the matter  
realistically and practicallyand having thought the matter throughconclude. Would [that  
person] think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or  
unconsciously, would not decide fairly(Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National  
Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716 at p. 394 [National Energy  
Board]). Thus, a claim that circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias must be  
evaluated “through the eyes of the reasonable, informed, practical and realistic person who  
considers the matter in some detail” (R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484, 151 D.L.R (4th) 193  
(S.C.C.) at para. 36 [S. (R.D.)]).  
[37] The inquiry into whether a decision-maker’s conduct creates a reasonable apprehension  
of bias is inherently contextual and fact-specific (Yukon Francophone School Board, Education  
Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 282 at para. 26). In  
addition, the case law firmly establishes that the threshold for a finding of bias is high; a party  
alleging bias must rebut a strong presumption of impartiality on the part of the decision-maker  
and must do so with concrete evidence, as opposed to speculation (National Energy Board at p.  
395; Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259 at paras. 76-77  
[Wewaykum]; S. (R.D.) at paras. 112-114).  
Page: 20  
[38] A reasonable apprehension of biasif not a finding of actual biasmay well arise where  
the same decision-maker makes an initial decision and then sits in appeal from that decision or  
appoints the appellate decision-maker (see, for example, MacBain v. Lederman, [1985] 1 F.C.  
856 (FCA), 22 D.L.R. (4th) 119 at paras. 11, 14; Port Colborne Warehousing Ltd. v Canada (Bd.  
of Steamship Inspection), 73 N.R. 126, 1987CarswellNat 924 at para. 12). In such circumstances,  
there is a perceived denial of an impartial appellate decision-maker. This sort of circumstance  
has sometimes been described as a violation of the maxim nemo judex in causa suaor that no  
one shall be a judge of that person’s own cause.  
[39] Turning to the notion of legitimate expectations, an administrative decision-maker’s  
failure to follow the procedure it has said it would follow may give rise to a breach of procedural  
fairness (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817  
(1999), 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at para. 26 [Baker]; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC  
30, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504 [Mavi]). The Supreme Court set out the conditions where an  
administrative decision-maker’s representations give rise to legitimate expectations in Mavi at  
paragraph 68:  
Where a government official makes representations within the scope of his or her  
authority to an individual about an administrative process that the government  
will follow, and the representations said to give rise to the legitimate expectations  
are clear, unambiguous and unqualified, the government may be held to its word,  
provided the representations are procedural in nature and do not conflict with the  
decision-maker’s statutory duty. Proof of reliance is not a requisite. See Mount  
Sinai Hospital Center [v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), 2001  
SCC 41, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281], at paras. 29-30; Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick  
(Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249, at para. 78; and C.U.P.E.  
v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539, at para. 131.  
It will be a breach of the duty of fairness for the decision maker to fail in a  
substantial way to live up to its undertaking: Brown and Evans, at pp. 7-25 and 7-  
26.  
Page: 21  
[40] Application of the foregoing principles in the instant appeal results in a determination  
that the appellant’s legitimate expectations were not violated and that Mr. Racine’s dual role did  
not give rise to either actual bias or to a reasonable apprehension of bias through violation of the  
prohibition against playing both the role of initial and appellate decision-maker.  
[41] Here, the involvement of Mr. Racine in the first audit was minimal and, to the extent he  
has been shown to have actually examined issues during the first audit as opposed to merely  
providing general advice or reviewing others’ drafts, his examination was related to issues  
surrounding the scholarships provided by the appellant. Scholarships were not at issue in the  
second audit or the appeal.  
[42] The first audit, moreover, was a partial one of the appellant’s 2003 and 2004 taxation  
years, where the donation scheme was not at issue because it had not yet been uncovered. With  
the exception of the donation scheme, the second audit and the appeal of the Notice of Intention  
to Revoke did not relate to the 2003 and 2004 taxation years. There was accordingly no overlap  
in the files or issues that Mr. Racine considered in the first audit and during the appeal from the  
Notice of Intention to Revoke.  
[43] Furthermore, Mr. Racine was not the decision-maker in respect of the determinations that  
give rise to this appeal. Rather, it was Mr. Manconi, who issued the Notice of Intention to  
Revoke, and Mr. Piotrkowski, who issued the Notice of Confirmation.  
Page: 22  
[44] Based on the foregoing, Mr. Racine cannot be said to have sat in appeal from a decision  
he made.  
[45] The present case is somewhat similar to Wewaykum. There, the Supreme Court held that  
tangential involvement in a case by one of its members when he was the Associate Deputy  
Minister of Justice and generally oversaw the litigation that ended up before the Supreme Court  
several years later did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, even where that  
member of the Court wrote the reasons in the case. Similarly, Mr. Racine’s tangential  
involvement, many years earlier, in respect of different issues in different taxation years from  
those that were examined in the appeal does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in  
the present case.  
[46] Nor does what occurred here violate any legitimate expectations the appellant might have  
had flowing from the CRA’s Appeals Manual and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The passages in  
those publications upon which the appellant relies do not prohibit what occurred in this case. The  
two audits concerned different taxation years, except for the donation scheme, which was  
discovered only during the second audit. Mr. Racine was therefore not involved in auditing any  
issues that were part of the appeal. Accordingly, he cannot be said as an appeals officer to have  
been “involved with the original decision under dispute”, to use the wording of the Taxpayer Bill  
of Rights, or to have been involved with the same file, as prohibited by the CRA’s Appeals  
Manual.  
Page: 23  
[47] Particularly in light of the need for clear, unambiguous and unqualified representations in  
order to find a violation of a party’s reasonable expectations as required by Mavi, there has been  
no violation of the appellant’s legitimate expectations in this case.  
[48] I therefore conclude that there has been no violation of the appellant’s procedural fairness  
rights and that what occurred in the present case does not give rise to either actual bias or a  
reasonable apprehension of bias.  
B.  
Did the Minister commit a reviewable error in respect of the grounds for revocation?  
[49] Turning to the appellant’s other arguments challenging the merits of the Minister’s  
decision to revoke the appellant’s registration as a charitable organization, as the appellant  
acknowledges, it must succeed on each of the other grounds it raises to be successful in this  
appeal if its bias argument fails. Thus, if just one of the bases for revocation is maintained, this  
appeal must be dismissed (see, for example, Humane Society of Canada for the Protection of  
Animals and the Environment v. Canada (National Revenue), 2015 FCA 178, 474 N.R. 79 at  
para. 64 [Humane Society of Canada]).  
[50] As already noted, the standard of review applicable to these additional issues is that of  
palpable and overriding erroran exacting standard. As this Court recently held in Ark Angel  
Fund, under the standard of palpable and overriding error, this Court “cannot reweigh the  
evidence or second-guess the Minister’s factual findings; instead, we must be convinced there  
has been obvious, calamitous error” (at para. 6).  
Page: 24  
[51] The appellant has not so convinced me in respect of all but one of the issues it raises. The  
one meritorious issue was conceded by the Minister and relates to the composition of the  
appellant’s board of directors in 2008 and 2009, which did include the two named individuals  
who were de jure directors. Success on this one issue, however, does not affect the result because  
there is no basis to interfere with the nine other grounds upon which the Minister based the  
decision to revoke the appellant’s registration as a charitable organization.  
[52] I move to next discuss these grounds and, for ease of reading, have grouped them  
together based on the issues to which they relate.  
(1)  
Grounds relied on in relation to the donation scheme  
[53] The most significant justification for revocation of the appellant’s registration as a  
charitable organization was doubtless its participation in the donation scheme with Dr. Sokol.  
Contrary to what the appellant says, it was not an error for the Minister to have relied on the  
evidence from Dr. Sokol to support the conclusion that the appellant was complicit in the  
scheme. Dr. Sokol’s evidence was clear, compelling, and demonstrated the appellant’s knowing  
involvement in the scheme. It was open to the Minister to accept such evidence from Dr. Sokol.  
Further, the Minister had ample additional evidence to support the decision to revoke on this  
basis, including documents from the appellant’s own records and bank accounts, from the  
accounts in Belize of the Moshe Shmuel Deitsch Corp., and from Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Deutsch,  
himself.  
Page: 25  
[54] Nor does the fact that the scheme was discovered only after the conclusion of the first  
audit and signature of the Compliance Agreement limit the Minister’s ability to rely on the  
appellant’s participation in the scheme from 2003 onward as a basis for revocation. There is no  
suggestion that the Minister in any way ignored the existence of the scheme during the first  
audit, which was conducted only on a partial basis.  
[55] The Minister therefore did not make a palpable and overriding error in concluding that  
the appellant had knowingly participated in the donation scheme with Dr. Sokol.  
[56] Under paragraph 168(1)(d) of the ITA, the Minister may revoke a charitable  
organization’s registration if it issues a receipt for a gift otherwise than in accordance with the  
ITA or if it issues a receipt that contains false information. The appellant issued many such  
receipts to Dr. Sokol for amounts that were returned to him.  
[57] In addition, pursuant to paragraph 168(1)(b) of the ITA, the Minister possesses authority  
to issue a Notice of Revocation if a charity ceases to comply with the requirements for  
registration. One of the requirements for registration, set out in the definition of “charitable  
organization” in subsection 149.1(1) of the ITA, is that the charitable organization devote all of  
its resources to charitable activities carried on by the organization, itself (paragraph 149.1(1)(a.1)  
of the ITA). When a charity participates in the donation scheme, it fails to devote all its resources  
to charitable activities as resources are funnelled back to a donor, a non-qualified donee.  
Page: 26  
[58] The Minister therefore possessed ample authority to revoke the appellant’s registration by  
virtue of its participation in the donation scheme, which was a serious violation of the ITA.  
[59] While the foregoing is sufficient to result in the dismissal of this appeal, for sake of  
completeness, I will briefly review the appellant’s other arguments.  
(2)  
Grounds related to the failure to have direction and control over activities in Israel  
[60] Contrary to what the appellant says, it was entirely open to the Minister to have  
concluded that the appellant had inadequate control over the distribution of funds in Israel in  
2008 and 2009. Indeed, the appellant acted in contravention of how the Directorate had told it to  
operate after the first audit and allowed funds to be disbursed directly to individuals in Israel in  
the total amount of nearly $600,000.00. The appellant was unable to establish how these funds  
were used. Further, according to correspondence to Rabbi Deutsch, the appellant was not  
involved in the selection of the individuals to whom such funds were given. In addition, there  
were no agency agreements with several other individuals to whom other funds were disbursed,  
and it was unclear whether the funds distributed to an organization were used for a charitable  
purpose.  
[61] The appellant’s challenges to the Minister’s conclusion that the appellant failed to  
demonstrate that its funds were directed toward its charitable works in Israel in 2008 and 2009  
amount to no more than a disagreement with the Minister’s conclusion. Such disagreement does  
not amount to a palpable and overriding error.  
Page: 27  
[62] The determination that the appellant had inadequate control over the distribution of funds  
in Israel in 2008 and 2009 and thus failed to demonstrate that its funds were directed toward its  
charitable works afforded the Minister authority to revoke the appellant’s registration for non-  
compliance with paragraph 168(1)(b) and subsection 149.1(1)(a.1) of the ITA.  
[63] This Court has made it clear that, although charities may use agents, they still must direct  
and control the use of their resources and cannot be a conduit to funnel money to non-qualified  
donees. Thus, a charity that has an agent must ensure that the agent uses the charity’s resources  
to carry out activities on the charity’s behalf (Canadian Committee for the Tel Aviv Foundation  
v. Canada, 2002 FCA 72, 287 N.R. 82 at paras. 30-31; Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel  
v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 FCA 323, 218 D.L.R. (4th) 718 at para. 66;  
Bayit Lepletot v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2006 FCA 128, 352 N.R. 374 at para.  
5). As Justice Scott stated in Public Television Association of Quebec v. Canada (National  
Revenue), 2015 FCA 170 at para. 44, “[t]he control over the agent’s activities is a key element to  
establish that it maintained direction and control over its resources.”  
[64] Such control was absent in respect of the appellant’s activities in Israel in 2008 and 2009,  
which accordingly afforded the Minister another basis for the revocation of the appellant’s  
registration as a charitable organization.  
Page: 28  
(3)  
Failure to maintain proper books and records  
[65] The Minister identified four areas in which the appellant’s books and records were  
inaccurate: (1) its 2009 and 2010 minutes of board of directors’ meetings, which were found to  
have been falsified; (2) lack of documentation to support travel expenditures by Rabbi Zirkind  
from 2007 to 2009; (3) lack of documentation regarding remuneration paid to fundraisers in 2008  
and 2009; and (4) insufficient documentation for the appellant’s activities in Israel in 2008 and  
2009 and also with respect to the donation scheme involving Dr. Sokol.  
[66] Paragraph 168(1)(e) of the ITA permits the Minister to revoke the registration of a  
charitable organization by reason of its non-compliance with any of sections 230 to 231.5 of the  
ITA. Subsection 230(2) of the ITA governs the books and records to be kept by organizations,  
including registered charities, and provides that they must keep records and books of account.  
This Court has described the requirement to maintain such books and records as “foundational”,  
noting that, “[g]iven the significant privileges that flow from registration under the Act as a  
charitable organization, the Minister must be able to monitor the continuing entitlement of the  
charitable organizations to those privileges” (Humane Society of Canada at para. 80).  
[67] In Jaamiah Al Uloom Al Islamiyyah Ontario v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FCA  
49, Justice Ryer observed at paragraph 15 that maintaining adequate books and records is a  
“basic requirement” that is “foundational” because “the absence of proper books and records  
places the Minister in the position of being unable to meet [the Minister’s] basic obligation to  
verify the accuracy and validity of the charitable donation receipts that the Charity has issued.”  
Page: 29  
For this reason, he found that non-compliance with the requirement was serious enough to  
warrant revocation. (See also, to similar effect, Lord's Evangelical Church of Deliverance and  
Prayer of Toronto v. Canada, 2004 FCA 397, 328 N.R. 179 at paras. 17-19 and College  
rabbinique de Montreal Oir Hachaim D'Tash v. Canada (Minister of the Customs and Revenue  
Agency), 2004 FCA 101, 58 D.T.C. 6182 at para. 2).  
[68] As concerns the first of the bases upon which the Minister found the appellant’s books  
and records to be insufficient, contrary to what the appellant says, it was open to the Minister to  
have concluded that the appellant had falsified the minutes for its board of directorsmeetings,  
without speaking again with Mr. Neuwirth or Mr. Man. Mr. Neuwirth had signed a statement  
confirming that he had not attended the meetings and Mr. Man told the Directorate he did not  
recall having attended them. He cancelled a second meeting with the Directorate to discuss the  
issue due to the tragic death of his child.  
[69] In the circumstances, there was no need for the Directorate to have further questioned  
either Mr. Neuwirth or Mr. Man in light of the evidence it had obtained, all of which supported  
the conclusion that the minutes were falsified. Had the appellant been in possession of evidence  
to the contrary, it was incumbent on it to have tabled it. It failed to do so. Thus, based on the  
evidence the Directorate gathered, it was entirely open to the Minister to have concluded that the  
minutes of the board of directors meetings were falsified.  
[70] As concerns the Minister’s determination that there was a lack of documentation to  
support Rabbi Zirkind’s travel expenditures, the appellant challenges only the inferences drawn  
Page: 30  
by the Minister and can point to no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion reached.  
Moreover, the record before this Court indicates that the appellant failed to provide  
documentation to support these travel expenditures beyond estimates from the Rabbi. In the  
absence of supporting documentation, like a mileage logbook, invoices for hotels, airline tickets  
or other similar documentation, it was open to the Minister to conclude that the appellant had  
failed to keep a sufficient record of the Rabbi’s travel expenditures.  
[71] Similarly, the appellant cannot point to any palpable and overriding error in the  
Minister’s determination that it did not maintain adequate records of amounts paid to students  
engaged in telephone solicitations, who were given cash and not issued any T4 or T4A  
documentation in circumstances where the appellant had no records of how much was paid to  
any of the students. The appellant’s argument that the Directorate should have interviewed the  
students misses the point, namely, that it is precisely to avoid needing to undertake such  
investigations that the ITA requires the maintenance of adequate records.  
[72] Finally, as already discussed, incomplete and inaccurate documentation existed for the  
appellant’s activities in Israel in 2008 and 2009 and in respect of the donation scheme.  
[73] The Minister therefore did not make a reviewable error in determining that the  
appellant’s registration as a charitable organization should be revoked due to its multiple failures  
to maintain adequate books and records.  
Page: 31  
(4)  
Failure to file accurate information returns  
[74] Paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA authorizes the Minister to revoke a charitable  
organization’s registration if it files inaccurate information returns. While minor errors made in  
returns do not warrant revocation as this Court noted in Opportunities for the Disabled  
Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue), 2016 FCA 94, 482 N.R. 297 at para. 49, there were  
many significant errors made in this case which provided the Minster grounds for revocation,  
particularly when coupled with the numerous other instances of non-compliance discussed  
above.  
[75] As noted, the Minister conceded that the appellant did not fail to accurately list its  
directors as the two non-active directors had been appointed as directors. The other instances of  
inaccurate reporting upon which the Minister principally relied for the revocation included:  
(1) the failure to accurately report Rabbi Zirkind’s salary (which should have been a fundraising  
expense, not a charitable expenditure); (2) the failure to accurately report the amounts paid to  
student fundraisers, for which there was no substantiation; (3) misreporting of charitable  
expenditures in Israel, which the appellant could not demonstrate had been made for allowable  
charitable purposes; and, (4) misreporting associated with the funds funnelled back to Dr. Sokol  
as part of the donation scheme.  
[76] All of the foregoing (with the exception of the characterization of Rabbi Zirkind’s salary)  
have already been discussed as breaches of other requirements in the ITA, and, for similar  
Page: 32  
reasons, the Minister made no palpable and overriding error in finding them to likewise  
constitute a violation of paragraph 168(1)(c) of the ITA.  
[77] As for the characterization of Rabbi Zirkind’s salary, the appellant has pointed to no  
reason why his salary ought not have been considered a fundraising expense as opposed to a  
charitable expenditure and, indeed, the appellant concedes that the Rabbi spent much of his time  
during the years in issue raising funds. I accordingly see no reviewable error in the Minister’s  
conclusion that the appellant failed to accurately report his salary as a fundraising expense.  
[78] Thus, there is no reviewable error in nine of the ten grounds upon which the Minister  
relied in deciding to revoke the appellant’s registration as a charitable organization.  
IV.  
Proposed Disposition  
[79] I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.  
"Mary J.L. Gleason"  
J.A.  
“I agree.  
Johanne Gauthier J.A.”  
“I agree.  
George R. Locke J.A.”  
APPENDIX A:  
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS  
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1  
Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, L.R.C.  
(5th Supp.)  
1985, c. 1 (5e suppl.)  
149.1(1) charitable activities  
149.1(1) activités de bienfaisance Y  
sont assimilées les activités qui sont  
relatives au dialogue sur les  
includes public policy dialogue and  
development activities carried on in  
furtherance of a charitable purpose;  
(activités de bienfaisance)  
politiques publiques ou à leur  
élaboration et qui sont exercées en  
vue de la réalisation de fins de  
bienfaisance. (charitable activities)  
[…]  
charitable organization, at any  
particular time, means an  
organization, whether or not  
incorporated,  
oeuvre de bienfaisance Est une  
oeuvre de bienfaisance à un moment  
donné l’oeuvre, constituée ou non en  
société :  
[…]  
(a.1) all the resources of which  
are devoted to charitable  
activities carried on by the  
organization itself,  
a.1) dont la totalité des  
ressources est consacrée à des  
activités de bienfaisance qu’elle  
mène elle-même;  
[…]  
qualified donee, at any time, means a donataire reconnu Sont des  
person that is  
donataires reconnus à un  
moment donné :  
(a) registered by the Minister and  
that is  
a) toute personne enregistrée à ce  
titre par le ministre qui est :  
(i) a housing corporation  
(i) une société d’habitation  
résidant au Canada et  
exonérée de l’impôt prévu à la  
présente partie par l’effet de  
l’alinéa 149(1)i) qui a  
resident in Canada and  
exempt from tax under this  
Part because of paragraph  
149(1)(i) that has applied for  
registration,  
Page: 2  
présenté une demande  
d’enregistrement,  
(ii) a municipality in Canada,  
(ii) une municipalité du  
Canada,  
(iii) a municipal or public  
body performing a function of  
government in Canada that  
has applied for registration,  
(iii) un organisme municipal  
ou public remplissant une  
fonction gouvernementale au  
Canada qui a présenté une  
demande d’enregistrement,  
(iv) a university outside  
(iv) une université située à  
l’étranger qui compte  
d’ordinaire parmi ses  
étudiants des étudiants venant  
du Canada et qui a présenté  
une demande  
Canada, the student body of  
which ordinarily includes  
students from Canada, that  
has applied for registration, or  
d’enregistrement,  
(v) a foreign charity that has  
applied to the Minister for  
registration under subsection  
(26),  
(v) un organisme de  
bienfaisance étranger qui a  
présenté au ministre une  
demande d’enregistrement en  
vertu du paragraphe (26);  
(b) a registered charity,  
b) tout organisme de bienfaisance  
enregistré;  
(b.1) a registered journalism  
organization  
b.1) toute organisation  
journalistique enregistrée;  
(c) a registered Canadian amateur  
athletic association, or  
c) toute association canadienne  
enregistrée de sport amateur;  
(d) Her Majesty in right of  
Canada or a province, the United  
Nations or an agency of the  
United Nations; (donataire  
reconnu)  
d) Sa Majesté du chef du Canada  
ou d’une province,  
l’Organisation des Nations Unies  
ou une institution reliée à cette  
dernière. (qualified donee)  
[…]  
149.1 (2) The Minister may, in the  
manner described in section 168,  
149.1 (2) Le ministre peut, de la  
façon prévue à l’article 168, révoquer  
revoke the registration of a charitable l’enregistrement d’une oeuvre de  
organization for any reason described bienfaisance pour l’un ou l’autre des  
Page: 3  
in subsection 168(1) or where the  
organization  
motifs énumérés au paragraphe  
168(1), ou encore si l’oeuvre :  
(a) carries on a business that is  
not a related business of that  
charity;  
a) soit exerce une activité  
commerciale qui n’est pas une  
activité commerciale  
complémentaire de cet organisme  
de bienfaisance;  
(b) fails to expend in any taxation  
year, on charitable activities  
carried on by it and by way of  
gifts made by it to qualified  
donees, amounts the total of  
which is at least equal to the  
organization’s disbursement  
quota for that year; or  
b) soit ne dépense pas au cours  
d’une année d’imposition, pour  
les activités de bienfaisance  
qu’elle mène elle-même ou par  
des dons à des donataires  
reconnus, des sommes dont le  
total est au moins égal à son  
contingent des versements pour  
l’année;  
(c) makes a disbursement by way  
of a gift, other than a gift made  
c) soit fait un versement sous  
forme de don, sauf s’il s’agit  
d’un don fait, selon le cas :  
(i) in the course of charitable  
activities carried on by it, or  
(i) dans le cadre de ses  
activités de bienfaisance,  
(ii) to a donee that is a  
qualified donee at the time of  
the gift.  
(ii) à un donataire qui est un  
donataire reconnu au moment  
du don.  
[…]  
168 (1) The Minister may, by  
registered mail, give notice to a  
168 (1) Le ministre peut, par lettre  
recommandée, aviser une personne  
person described in any of paragraphs visée à l’un des alinéas a) à c) de la  
(a) to (c) of the definition qualified définition de donataire reconnu au  
donee in subsection 149.1(1) that the paragraphe 149.1(1) de son intention  
Minister proposes to revoke its  
registration if the person  
de révoquer l’enregistrement si la  
personne, selon le cas :  
(a) applies to the Minister in  
writing for revocation of its  
registration;  
a) s’adresse par écrit au ministre,  
en vue de faire révoquer son  
enregistrement;  
(b) ceases to comply with the  
requirements of this Act for its  
registration;  
b) cesse de se conformer aux  
exigences de la présente loi  
relatives à son enregistrement;  
Page: 4  
(c) in the case of a registered  
charity, registered Canadian  
amateur athletic association or  
registered journalism  
organization, fails to file an  
information return as and when  
required under this Act or a  
regulation;  
c) dans le cas d’un organisme de  
bienfaisance enregistré, d’une  
association canadienne  
enregistrée de sport amateur ou  
d’une organisation journalistique  
enregistrée, omet de présenter  
une déclaration de  
renseignements, selon les  
modalités et dans les délais  
prévus par la présente loi ou par  
son règlement;  
(d) issues a receipt for a gift  
otherwise than in accordance  
with this Act and the regulations  
or that contains false  
d) délivre un reçu pour un don  
sans respecter les dispositions de  
la présente loi et de son  
règlement ou contenant des  
renseignements faux;  
information;  
(e) fails to comply with or  
contravenes any of sections 230  
to 231.5; or  
e) omet de se conformer à l’un  
des articles 230 à 231.5 ou y  
contrevient;  
[…]  
230 (2) Every qualified donee  
230 (2) Chaque donataire reconnu  
referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of visé aux alinéas a) à c) de la  
the definition qualified donee in  
subsection 149.1(1) shall keep  
records and books of account in  
définition de donataire reconnu au  
paragraphe 149.1(1) doit tenir des  
registres et des livres de comptes à  
the case of a qualified donee referred une adresse au Canada enregistrée  
to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) and auprès du ministre ou désignée par  
(iii) and paragraphs (b), (b.1) and (c) lui, s’il s’agit d’un donataire reconnu  
of that definition, at an address in visé aux sous-alinéas a)(i) ou (iii) ou  
Canada recorded with the Minister or aux alinéas b), b.1) ou c) de cette  
designated by the Minister —  
définition qui contiennent ce qui  
containing  
suit :  
(a) information in such form as  
will enable the Minister to  
determine whether there are any  
grounds for the revocation of its  
registration under this Act;  
a) des renseignements sous une  
forme qui permet au ministre de  
déterminer s’il existe des motifs  
de révocation de l’enregistrement  
de l’organisme ou de  
l’association en vertu de la  
présente loi;  
(b) a duplicate of each receipt  
containing prescribed  
b) un double de chaque reçu,  
renfermant les renseignements  
Page: 5  
information for a donation  
received by it; and  
prescrits, visant les dons reçus  
par l’organisme ou l’association;  
(c) other information in such  
form as will enable the Minister  
to verify the donations to it for  
which a deduction or tax credit is  
available under this Act.  
c) d’autres renseignements sous  
une forme qui permet au ministre  
de vérifier les dons faits à  
l’organisme ou à l’association et  
qui donnent droit à une déduction  
ou à un crédit d’impôt aux termes  
de la présente loi.  
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL  
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD  
A-436-19  
DOCKET:  
COLEL CHABAD LUBAVITCH  
FOUNDATION OF ISRAEL v.  
MINISTER OF NATIONAL  
REVENUE  
STYLE OF CAUSE:  
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC  
DECEMBER 14, 2021  
GLEASON J.A.  
PLACE OF HEARING:  
DATE OF HEARING:  
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:  
CONCURRED IN BY:  
GAUTHIER J.A.  
LOCKE J.A.  
JUNE 9, 2022  
DATED:  
APPEARANCES:  
Jean-François Dorais  
Arnaud Prud'Homme  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
FOR THE RESPONDENT  
Charles Camirand  
Anna Maria Konewka  
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:  
Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, L.L.P.  
Montréal, Quebec  
FOR THE APPELLANT  
FOR THE RESPONDENT  
A. François Daigle  
Deputy Attorney General of Canada  



© 2019 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission