Case information

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory motions — Court dismissing motion for interim stay — Taxation — Charities — Do the statutory rights of objection and appeal under sections 168 and 172 of the Income Tax Act remain available for a party in the position of the applicant following revocation, and if not, how does this impact the assessment of irreparable harm under the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief — Has the Federal Court of Appeal properly applied the RJR-MacDonald test when a charitable organization seeks an injunction in order to preserve its statutorily-granted procedural rights to challenge a notice of intention to revoke — Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, Rules 372 and 373 – Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (ITA), ss. 168 and 172 – Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 824 — RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant is a registered charity under the ITA. The Canada Revenue Agency found that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements under the ITA and the applicant was advised that the respondent would be publishing in the Canada Gazette a notice revoking the applicant’s registration pursuant to s. 168(2)(b) of the ITA. The applicant commenced a proceeding before the Federal Court of Appeal for an order precluding the respondent from publishing the notice of revocation until it followed the objection process under s. 168(4) of the ITA and any appeal available under s. 172(3) of the ITA. It also brought a motion for interim relief funder Rules 372 and 373 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106. The respondent delayed the publication until the motion for interim relief was decided. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for interim relief on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied the court that it would suffer irreparable harm from the publication of the notice or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim relief.