International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) v. Canada (National Revenue)

International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) v. Canada (National Revenue)

Because the charity's registration had been revoked the extension of time application under s.168(2)(b) had no object and was therefore moot; the respondent's letter did not establish a realistic possibility of reinstatement sufficient to prevent mootness, and alternative statutory review mechanisms meant the Court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 FCA 206
Parties
Applicant: International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada); Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application Under Income Tax Act (s.168(2)(b)) / Motion to Strike; Decided on Written Submissions; Application Struck as Moot
Outcome
Respondent's motion to strike allowed; application struck as moot; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Charitable Registration, Extension of Time, Mootness, Judicial Discretion, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
en
Tax Law Administrative Law Charity Law Civil Procedure Revocation of Charitable Registration Extension of Time Mootness Judicial Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada)

Applicant

Minister of National Revenue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application Under Income Tax Act (s.168(2)(b)) / Motion to Strike; Decided on Written Submissions; Application Struck as Moot

  1. 1 Whether an application for an extension of time under s.168(2)(b) is moot where the charity's registration has been revoked
  2. 2 Whether a government letter indicating possible reinstatement prevents a finding of mootness
  3. 3 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot application given alternative statutory review mechanisms

Ratio Decidendi

Because the charity's registration had been revoked the extension of time application under s.168(2)(b) had no object and was therefore moot; the respondent's letter did not establish a realistic possibility of reinstatement sufficient to prevent mootness, and alternative statutory review mechanisms meant the Court would not exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion to strike allowed; application struck as moot; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Motion to strike allowed
  • Application for extension of time struck as moot