Ontario Regulation 4/01 (the "Regulation") under the Charities Accounting Act (Ontario) authorizes a corporation to protect directors and officers through indemnification or insurance, or both.
In Ottawa Humane Society v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (decided September 2017), Justice Beaudoin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the conversion of a prominent Ontario charitable corporation into a closed-membership corporation in which the directors were the only voting members. The court found that the adoption of a closed membership was a corporate best practice and fell within the proper exercise of the board's business judgment. In his reasons, the judge ordered the members who had challenged the adoption of a closed membership to pay a portion of the costs of the embattled corporation.
In Bloorview Children's Hospital Foundation v. Bloorview MacMillan Centre (decided 2002), Justice Pitt of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that, on the facts, a charitable foundation was independent of its separately incorporated operating charity and was entitled to decide for itself whether to advance foundation monies for an expansion of the operating charity's facilities.
In Victoria Order of Nurses for Canada v. Greater Hamilton Wellness Foundation (decided 2011), Justice Beaudoin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the former fundraising entity of the Victorian Order of Nurses Hamilton-Wentworth Branch could not unilaterally change its letters patent so that it cut all ties with the successor of the Branch.
Charity law holds directors of charitable corporations to strict duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to disgorge payments they may receive in violation of this duty. But a proposed new regulation under the Charities Accounting Act would relax this standard.
May a foundation engage in a related-party transaction? David Feldman Charitable Foundation, Re, a decision of the Ontario Surrogate Court in 1987, involved a related-party transaction of a private foundation.
Vancouver Society of Immigrant & Visible Minority Women v. M.N.R. is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the meaning and scope of charitable purposes and activities, which are requirements for the registration of a charitable organization under the Income Tax Act (Canada).
In A.Y.S.A Youth Soccer Assn. v. Canada Revenue Agency, the Supreme Court of Canada blocked a long-shot attempt to radically expand the residual head of charitable classification at common law.
In Credit Counselling Services of Atlantic Canada Inc. v. M.N.R. (released June 2016), the Federal Court of Appeal held that, while the relief of poverty is a charitable purpose, this should not be extended to the prevention of poverty without legislative intervention.