Michael Dickhout wrote:

Hey Ray,

Won't any non-profit incorporated before the new act be grandfathered?

No. There will be a three-year transition period during which an existing corporation must apply for continuance under the new act. This will involve changing its incorporation documents to conform with the new rules. If it does not do this it may be dissolved.

The link is the same for non-profits at this time.

I believe the only hang up is, as you pointed out, to get the objects right so they do not delay any application for charity status.

Yes, while some of the other points still require decisions they do not involve technical drafting problems.

And I can see the appeal of the museum direction . . .

I'm not too sure how we would qualify as a museum, and legally novel arguments will usually be a hard sell. What I like about the Vancouver Free-Net situation is that they are an internet based organization which took its case to court ... and won. That makes for a very strong precedent. Their application was based on "other charitable purposes", not education.

/The advancement of education/

The courts recognize a purpose or activity as advancing education in the charitable sense if it involves formal training of the mind or formal instruction, or if it prepares a person for a career, or if it improves a useful branch of human knowledge. Only providing information is not accepted by the courts as educational; training or instruction also have to be offered. The advancement of education includes:

* establishing and operating schools, colleges, universities, and
  other similar institutions;
* establishing academic chairs and lectureships;
* providing scholarships, bursaries, and prizes for scholastic
  achievement;
* undertaking research in a recognized field of knowledge (The
  research must be carried out for educational purposes and the
  results must be made available to the public.);
* advancing science and scientific institutions, including
  maintaining learned societies (Professional associations or
  other societies that primarily provide benefits to members are
  not considered charitable.); and
* providing and maintaining museums and public art galleries.

(http://www.corporationcentre.ca/docen/home/faq.asp?id=incnp#q10)

How about under research?

There is the research and advancement of the wiki concept, but also in individual projects. What School Partners would like to promote is a wiki mainly directed at schools that would allow students (and the public) to write their own comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Canadian, including family and ethnic histories.

Traditionally the law has had a bricks-and-mortar view of education, and underlaying that is the attitude that the primary purpose of education is for better jobs in the future. We want purposes that will succeed as easily as possible without a legal fight. All new ideas carry a strong element of risk.

Ray, is there any indication the requirements for charity status may also change?

No. Canada does *not* have a statutory definition of "charitable purposes". The concept derives from the UK Statute of Elizabeth passed in 1601, as modernized by Commissioners v. Pemsel in 1891, when Canadian cases were still being decided by the House of Lords. Britain passed a Charities Act in 2006, but this has no effect on Canada. Thus Canadian law is based wholly on 400 years of precedent.

I am aware of no movement to change the situation in Canadian law, or any studies to bring the law up to date. I certainly don't expect anything to be accomplished under the lack of leadership shown by the current government.

Ray

2010/1/24 Ray Saintonge

Amgine wrote:
>>> Given that, use the boilerplate as modified by WMF legal
counsel (who,
>>> btw, are quite willing to offer legal guidance or referral.)
>>>
>> The important feature is that the by-laws conform with Canadian
law.
>> The boilerplate is based on US law.
>>
>> Ray
>>
> You're quibbling to no purpose, which I suppose is why this is
yet not
> completed.
>
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs01366.html <- the
> boilerplate to which I was referring.
>
> Amgine
>

The linked page is inapplicable. It only relates to incorporations
under
the Canada Business Corporations Act, /i.e./ Corporations for profit.

Not-for-profit corporations are still governed by the Canada
Corporations Act which will cease to apply when the new Canada
Not-for-profit Corporations Act is proclaimed into law.  That is
expected at some time during this year.

-- Michael Dickhout

It would be very helpful if we could fit into an "other" category. Wikisource and Commons are providing library and archive-like services, but are neither libraries nor museums. They are creating an electronic community, but are not helping a neighbourhood. It would be nice if we could find a lawyer to see what niche we fit into, as we don't have the money to actually argue our case to the agency that would be reviewing our application.

That said, I think our current statement of purpose on meta looks pretty good (at least compared to the examples from the old law)

-Jeffery Nichols (Arctic.gnome)

On 2010-01-25, at 10:52 AM, P Lahiry wrote:

...

And I can see the appeal of the museum direction . . .

I'm not too sure how we would qualify as a museum, and legally novel arguments will usually be a hard sell. What I like about the Vancouver Free-Net situation is that they are an internet based organization which took its case to court ... and won. That makes for a very strong precedent. Their application was based on "other charitable purposes", not education.

The reason it was filed under "other charitable purposes" was because Free-Net was accepted on the grounds of acting as an electronic community (as well as electronic library). Specifically 2 of the 3 judges accepted that provision of access into the electronic highway was a charitable purpose. I think "advancement of education" would be a much better fit. I called up the Charities Directorate at the CRA and they agreed (although to be fair I don't how much I would rely on that).

Jit _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-ca mailing list Wikimedia-ca@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

Jeffery Nichols wrote:

...

That said, I think our current statement of purpose on meta looks pretty good (at least compared to the examples from the old law)

It's still a matter of tax law rather than corporate law, and most lawyers still run the other way when you say there's a tax issue. The problem with the Revenue Canada information line is that they are not bound by anything they say. It's a little early to talk about funding a court case when we haven't even been rejected yet.

The main issue about the purposes is that they must show how Canadians will benefit from the charitable monies that we spend. Verbs like "encourage" and "promote" sound good but can be done without spending money.

What is the actual yardstick that the charitable status request is measured against? I'm not sure if other functioning charities have to disclose their applications, but it might help if they do to review that.

Also, I'm guessing that RevCan has some set of rules that they apply to orgs that already have status to determine if they are allowed to keep it.

I know that some of this is a bit fuzzy, but the less fuzzy we make it the easier it will be to make some decisions going forward. We should be able to look at existing orgs with charitable designation to get ideas of what has worked until now.

I do think that WM Canada will probably break new ground as an org, but the truth is that we should probably avoid it during the startup phase with the government, as it'll make the job harder all around.

Gerald

Hi Marc,

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@wikimania.qc.cawrote:

On 01/02/2010 6:01 PM, Gerald A wrote:

...

I do think that WM Canada will probably break new ground as an org, but the truth is that we should probably avoid it during the startup phase with the government, as it'll make the job harder all around.

It's actually the other way 'round. Consult with a specialized lawyer: unless the charter of the nonprofit is /just right/ at constitution, (and the bylaws are near perfect -- though at least you get to change those) you'll face a tremendous uphill battle to even have a shot at charitable status.

I think we're on the same page here. If I was unclear, I apologize. What I was trying to say was that we should try to find a model we can emulate for the charitable status bits. While there are some really progressive thinkers in Government, we're far more likely to get a stickler for the rules and thus get slapped for that upfront. Let's dot all the i's and cross all the t's, and be progressive in our actions.

Gerald