In Asian Outreach Canada v. Hutchinson (a 1999 decision), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to issue interlocutory injunctions against the former and current affiliates of a foreign religious organization. The case demonstrates the perils of operating through affiliates unless the relationship is adequately documented.
In its 1978 split decision in Polish Veterans Second Corps v. Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada, a majority in the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized and gave effect to the property rights of members of an unincorporated local unit of a national, non-charitable organization.
In Bentley v. Anglican Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster (decided in 2010), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that, when four Anglican parishes decided to leave a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and the oversight of the Anglican Bishop, the church buildings and other property belonged to the ACC and could not be used by the split-off parishes, even though they continued to adhere to the Anglican faith.
In a previous post, we stated that the Supreme Court of British Columbia's 2015 ruling in Habitat for Humanity Canada v. Hearts and Hands for Homes Society provides a textbook illustration of how an umbrella charitable organization can protect its brand, not only at the time that it accepts local organizations as affiliates but also when handling the disaffiliation process should the local organization become a threat to the larger brand. In a decision released in May 2016, the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling.
Habitat for Humanity Canada v. Hearts and Hands for Home Society (released July 2015) provides a textbook illustration of how an umbrella charitable organization can protect its brand not only at the time that it accepts local organizations as affiliates but also how it should handle the disaffiliation process when the local organization become a threat to the larger brand.
Conseil des Mohawks de Kanesatake c. Kanesatake Health Centre Inc. (October 2013), the Superior Court of Québec ruled on who has jurisdiction to hear a judicial review of certain decisions of the board of directors of a federal corporation, the corporate defendant, Kanesatake Health Centre ("KHC"): the Federal Court of Canada or the Superior Court of Québec. It also ruled on whether that jurisdiction was exclusive or non-exclusive.