Bayit Lepletot v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

Bayit Lepletot v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate on the record that it was carrying on the charitable works itself through its agent; there was insufficient evidence that the agent acted on the appellant's behalf or that control was exercised by the appellant, and the sub-delegation claim lacked...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Bayit Lepletot; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Federal Court of Appeal Appeal / Reasons for Judgment Delivered From the Bench
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Agency, Control Over Agent, Charitable Activities, Sub Delegation, Foreign Charitable Operations
Source Language
en
Charity Law Tax Law Administrative Law Agency Control Over Agent Charitable Activities Sub Delegation Foreign Charitable Operations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayit Lepletot

Appellant

Minister of National Revenue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Federal Court of Appeal Appeal / Reasons for Judgment Delivered From the Bench

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was carrying on its own charitable works
  2. 2 Whether disbursements made through an agent (Rabbi Stern) constituted the appellant's charitable activities
  3. 3 Whether proof of control over the agent's activities is required to establish that the works are the appellant's

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate on the record that it was carrying on the charitable works itself through its agent; there was insufficient evidence that the agent acted on the appellant's behalf or that control was exercised by the appellant, and the sub-delegation claim lacked factual foundation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.