Date: 19990226
Dockets: 94-1406-IT-G; 96-1131-IT-G; 96-1138-IT-G; 96-2785-IT-G; 96-2787-IT-G; 96-2789-IT-G; 96-2790-IT-G; 96-2838-IT-G; 97-465-IT-G
BETWEEN:
SHERRYL KOOP (94-1406-IT-G), GILBERT KLASSEN (96-1131-IT-G), BRENDA RUSHTON (96-1138-IT-G), PETER D. LAWRIE (96-2785-IT-G), THOMAS R. HOWSE (96-2787-IT-G), RICHARD W. SPEIDEL (96-2789-IT-G), JOHN T. HAMADA (96-2790-IT-G), WILLIAM L. LEE (96-2838-IT-G), KEVIN G. BRONSON (97-465-IT-G),
Appellants,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for judgment
Bowman, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is the last group of appeals heard in the spring, summer and fall of 1998 having to do with claims for a deduction under paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The central issue is whether two organizations, Youth For Christ and The Navigators of Canada are religious orders.
[2] Sherryl Koop, Brenda Rushton and Gilbert Klassen are members of Youth For Christ Society. The others belong to The Navigators.
[3] I shall begin with the question of religious order. It is unnecessary for me to set out in detail the various arguments that were advanced in the earlier cases which I heard, or the reasons that I expressed for the conclusions that I reached. It is sufficient to summarize them. What is clear from evidence of experts, as well as the authorities that were adduced in evidence, is that ecclesiastical concepts, and in particular the concept of religious order, are far richer, more varied, and permutable than the respondent is prepared to accept, and certainly than are set out in the obiter dicta in the McRae case, which the Minister of National Revenue has sought to use as a justification for restricting the term religious order to those in which vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are required.
[4] In the Miller and McGorman cases I set out a number of guidelines that I found useful in determining whether a religious organization was a religious order. They were the following:
(1) The purpose of the organization should be primarily religious. By this I do not imply that it can have no other objects within the overall context of that religious purpose such as education, the relief of poverty, or the alleviation of social ills and suffering. Indeed, to exclude religious organizations from the definition of religious order on the ground that they had objects that went beyond preaching the gospel and prayer and meditation and extended to works beneficial to humanity such as running hospitals, or helping the poor and homeless, is historically incorrect, scripturally wrong, at least in the context of Christian orders (see James 2:20-26) and, as a practical matter, unreasonable and unworkable. The propagation of the gospel has traditionally been by example, good works and ministering to people's needs, not by merely preaching to them.
(2) The members must agree to adhere to and in fact adhere to a strict moral and spiritual regime of self-sacrifice and dedication to the goals of the organization to the detriment of their own material well being.
(3) The commitment of the members should be full-time and of a long-term nature. In some cases it may be for life, but this is not essential. It is important that it not be short term, temporary or part-time.
(4) The spiritual and moral discipline and regime under which the members live must be markedly stricter than that to which the lay church members are expected to adhere.
(5) Admission to the order must be in accordance with strict standards of spiritual and personal suitability.
(6) There should generally be a sense of communality.
[5] I based these guidelines, which I formulated for my own guidance in deciding all of the cases involving religious orders, on the expert testimony and the numerous religious authorities and texts which were put in evidence. Even the Roman Catholic authorities, which counsel for the respondent urged me to treat as a model or template, support the view that new forms of religious orders are developing, and patterns of consecrated life and secular institutes which do not conform to traditional forms (for example ancient orders such as the Jesuits or the Franciscans) are emerging and developing. The conclusion to be drawn from the authorities, including the Roman Catholic authorities, is that religious orders can encompass interfaith orders, orders that are family oriented, and orders that do not require vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Nonetheless, such orders do require significant self-sacrifice, a dedication that transcends that of an ordinary churchgoer and an ardent commitment to the cause of the particular order.
[6] Youth For Christ is such an order and the Department of National Revenue has consistently and in my view correctly treated it as a religious order. Their credentialled staff members are in my view ministers, although that is not essential to the claim. Credentialling by Youth For Christ is a ceremony of considerable solemnity and takes place only after a vigorous and lengthy internship involving training, study and testing for spiritual suitability.
[7] Sherryl Koop's work with the disadvantaged youth of Winnipeg clearly constitutes ministering to a congregation. The work of Youth For Christ among the youth of Winnipeg is quite remarkable. It involves running drop-in centres, sports facilities and preaching the gospel. She acts as chaplain to young offenders at the Manitoba Youth Center and Seven Oaks Centre and ministers as well to the congregation at Youth For Christ's Street Light worship service.
[8] Quite apart from being a credentialled member of Youth For Christ, she is a commissioned minister of the Mennonite Brethren Churches.
[9] I find the denial of the deduction to Sheryl Koop little short of startling.
[10] Both Gilbert Klassen and Brenda Rushton are credentialled members of Youth For Christ. They ministered to congregations in Saskatoon in substantially the same manner as Sherryl Koop did in Winnipeg. Their work is arduous and requires great dedication and self-sacrifice. It is of consummate importance to the youth of the communities in which they serve. In the Austin case, the McGorman and Miller cases, as well as the Kraft case, I set out my understanding of the terms regular minister, member of the clergy, and ministering to a congregation. The reasoning is equally applicable here.
[11] In my view they qualify both as ministers and as members of a religious order, ministering to a congregation.
[12] I turn now to The Navigators. This organization was formed in 1933 to spread the gospel among sailors. Today its focus is primarily among university students. Unlike Youth For Christ, which serves an important social function, the sole purpose of The Navigators is proselytising. This of itself is not a reason for concluding that The Navigators is not a religious order. Contemplative orders serve no social function. Their sole purpose is the spiritual advancement of their members. They are not for this reason alone not religious orders. Nonetheless, the absence of any social function distinguishes The Navigators from all of the other organizations whose status as religious orders I have had to consider.
[13] Of all of the organizations in this series of cases — SIM, CBOMB, Youth For Christ, Christian Horizons and The Navigators — The Navigators are the only ones about which I have any doubt. I have no hesitation about any of the others. Their devotion, their acceptance of straitened material circumstances as a way of life, their humility, and their selfless dedication to the social and spiritual goals of their order exemplify the highest standards of a Christian religious order. The difficulty with The Navigators is to determine whether the members of that organization exemplify the same qualities.
[14] A significant distinction between The Navigators and all of the other organizations that I have considered is the concentration on making money through fund raising. A large part of their concentration and published material is on how to raise money and many of them appear to earn substantial incomes and live comfortable middle-class lives. For example, the chief of The Navigators in Canada, Mr. Rains, earned over $94,000 in 1995. One of the appellants, Mr. Lawrie, also ran a paving company. Mr. Lee, a Commended Worker with the Plymouth Brethren, earned income as a director of a family company.
[15] The Navigators have no restriction on what outside activities they can engage in, or what other sources of income besides fundraising for themselves may be developed by them. The Navigators are an organization that, no doubt, proceeds with their proselytising among university students with much zeal, and this may be seen by many as a worthwhile activity. They also proceed with considerable zeal in fundraising for their own purposes, and are free to pursue any other means of making money. Although they meet some of the criteria set out above in which I endeavoured to enumerate the qualities that were characteristic of a religious order, it cannot be said that they meet them all. Unlike the members of the other organizations, the members of The Navigators earn comfortable incomes, can set their own level of targeted income, devote a significant part of their time to raising funds for their own support, and are free to earn income from other sources. This is a significant distinction. It is not merely a difference in degree. It is a fundamental and qualitative difference.
[16] It is not without hesitation and anxious consideration that I have concluded that The Navigators are not a religious order. I do not mean in any way to trivialize the importance of what they do, or to belittle the dedication with which they seek to bring the Gospel to university students. In considering the status as religious orders of all of the organizations involved in this series of cases, I have endeavoured, based upon the expert testimony and the voluminous religious authorities adduced in evidence and referred to in argument, to give to the words in paragraph 8(1)(c), including "religious order", a meaning that recognizes the development over the past century or so of new forms of religious institution and does not depend upon rigid classifications that may have had validity in an earlier era. This does not, however, mean that every religious institution or organization is a religious order. The criteria that I have formulated, albeit broader than these set out in McRae, are in fact quite narrow and, even on my tests, it is relatively strait gate through which an organization must pass if it is to be regarded as a religious order. To include The Navigators with the other organizations within the term "religious order" would in my view be to stretch the meaning of that term to a degree that is not warranted.
[17] The remaining question is whether any of the appellants who belong to The Navigators are regular ministers or members of the clergy ministering to a congregation or engaged exclusively in full time administrative service by appointment of a religious denomination. The only one of The Navigators who qualifies as a minister or member of the clergy is Reverend Lee, who is a Commended Worker of the Plymouth Brethren. I should find it difficult to conclude that Reverend Lee was not ministering to a congregation. He ministers to the English language congregation of the Chinese Christian Chapel in Vancouver, an independent Christian congregation loosely connected with the Christian and Missionary Alliance denominations, with about 500 members of which about 150 are in the English language congregation.
[18] In 1989, he was invited by his congregation to be pastor, but he declined so that he could continue his work with The Navigators. He did however accept a position as Missionary in Residence. He is responsible for the conduct of the English language services at the Chinese Christian Chapel. He led worship services, provided communion and preached. His work also included baptisms, funerals and benedictions. He led Bible studies, prayer group meetings and taught Sunday school.
[19] The appeals of the members of Youth For Christ are allowed. The appeals of The Navigators are dismissed, except for that of William Lee, which is allowed.
[20] I shall defer dealing with costs until counsel have had an opportunity of making representations.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of February 1999.
“D.G.H. Bowman”
J.T.C.C.