In Coram Deo Foundation v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted a 30-day interlocutory injunction to Coram Deo Foundation (“Foundation”), a Vancouver-based charity, preventing the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) from publishing a Notice of Revocation (“Notice”) of the Foundation’s charitable status in the Canada Gazette.
The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) audited the Foundation for the period January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022. It identified areas of non-compliance, including non-incidental private benefits to a director’s son (who received consulting fees) and non-arm’s length loans to corporations owned by a director. In August 2025, the Foundation responded that the loans had been repaid with interest and that the consulting fees reflected fair market value. Nevertheless, on December 16, 2025, the CRA issued a Notice of Intention to Revoke the Foundation’s charitable registration. The Notice could be published anytime after 30 days from when the CRA’s Notice of Intention to Revoke was sent to the Foundation, that is, anytime from January 17, 2026.
The key issues before the Court were:
- Whether it had jurisdiction as a Provincial Superior Court, to grant an injunction restraining publication of a federal revocation notice; and
- Whether the Foundation’s proposed constitutional challenge to the Income Tax Act met the test for interlocutory injunctive relief.
The Foundation argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent publication of the Notice while it prepared a constitutional challenge to the Minister’s authority to revoke its charitable status. It contended that under the Constitution Act, 1867, provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the “establishment, maintenance, and management of … Charities”, while the federal government’s authority is limited to taxation.
The Minister argued that the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) has exclusive jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act to delay the publication of a revocation notice. The Court disagreed, finding that the Income Tax Act does not explicitly grant the FCA exclusive jurisdiction in all circumstances, particularly when a charity is challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s authority to manage charities, rather than merely disputing a tax assessment.
The Foundation further argued that publication of the Notice would cause irreparable harm because revocation takes effect immediately upon publication in the Canada Gazette. It asserted that millions of dollars in pledged 2026 donations, supporting clean water projects in Africa and scholarships for hundreds of underprivileged students in Canada, would be jeopardized. It also argued that its directors would suffer reputational harm in being labeled as “ineligible individuals.”
The Minister maintained that these harms were simply the ordinary statutory consequences of revocation and therefore did not meet the threshold for irreparable harm. The Court found in favour of the Foundation, holding that although ordinary statutory consequences typically do not constitute irreparable harm, the evidence in this case demonstrated real and immediate harm to beneficiaries and to the directors’ reputations.
Although the Court granted a temporary reprieve to the Foundation, the constitutional challenge remains to be decided. Regardless of the constitutional outcome, the case underscores the importance of strong governance practices, thorough documentation, careful oversight of related-party transactions, and strict compliance with receipting and reporting obligations. Failure in these areas can have significant and lasting consequences for beneficiaries, directors, and the charity as a whole. The case demonstrates that if a charity can provide evidence of irreparable harm, such as the immediate cessation of essential services or the permanent loss of donor trust, provincial courts may be willing to grant an interim injunction to maintain the status quo. For charities in similar positions, the takeaway is that seeking an injunction, though rarely granted, may allow the charity to remain operational while the underlying merits of the Minister’s decision are litigated.