The Sheldon M. Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership lost its case to prohibit the national revenue minister from publishing a notice its charitable status had been lost in the Canada Gazette. “Despite counsel’s able submissions, the Foundation has failed to persuade us, on a balance of probabilities, that it will suffer irreparable harm,” said Federal Court of Appeal Judge Sylvie Roussel in a ruling. “In our view, the evidence put forward by the Foundation is insufficient to establish that it will suffer irreparable harm if the Minister proceeds with the publication of the notice of intent to revoke.” The Chumir Foundation organizes discussions, research projects, and publications, drawing lessons from history and exploring the best contemporary thinking and evidence. By having a strong focus, it studies diverse subjects and allows people to engage in debates about them. National Revenue Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau had notified the Chumir Foundation under the Income Tax Act of her intention to revoke its charitable status. The revocation would take effect when a copy of the notice was published in the Canada Gazette. To succeed in this application, Roussel said the Chumir Foundation must prove it meets the requirements for the test to grant it a stay or injunction set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. She acknowledged it has to demonstrate there is a serious issue to be determined in its objection to the revocation, the publication of the notice will cause it irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience lies in its favour. The assessment of these elements is context specific and requires the court determine whether granting the stay is just and equitable in all of the circumstances. Regarding the first element of the test, it has raised several grounds in opposition to Bibeau’s decision to revoke its charitable status. It said she has breached her duty of procedural fairness and legal principles in issuing the notice of intent to revoke its charitable status. While Bibeau disputes its allegations, she conceded there is a serious issue to be determined. Since she comes across as credible, Roussel said she believes her. With respect to the second element of the test, it said it will suffer irreparable harm to its reputation, its capacity to fund and maintain programming, and its relationships with third parties. The Federal Court of Appeal has stated irreparable harm “cannot be inferred, but must be established by clear and compelling evidence.” “General assertions cannot establish irreparable harm,” said the Federal Court. “Nor can assumptions, speculations, hypotheticals and arguable assertions, unsupported by evidence; they carry no weight.”The evidence consisted of general and speculative assertions its relationships with third parties will not survive the revocation of its charitable registration and that this loss will lead to a drop in donations and the end of its programming. Similar general and speculative assertions have been rejected by it. Given its conclusion with respect to irreparable harm, Roussel said she does not need to consider the balance of convenience element of the test. “As one of the requisite elements of the tripartite test has not been satisfied, the application for the requested order shall be dismissed with costs in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive,” she said.
