Corporate Update

Amendment to Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Regulations

On May 13, 2016, Regulation SOR/2016-98 was registered to amend certain Department of Industry Regulations. Among the changes, section 73 and 83 of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Regulations SOR/2011-223 were amended by replacing the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook references with the Chartered Professional Accountants Canada (CPA) Handbook. In this regard, the CPA is the new association of professional accountants in Canada that replaces the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. As a result, the names of the handbooks have changed, but the accounting rules remain the same.

Nova Scotia now permits Community Interest Companies

On June 15, 2016, the Nova Scotia legislature passed the Community Interest Company Regulations, which bring into effect the Community Interest Companies Act (the “Act”). At the same time, an order was made by Governor in Council on June 14, 2016, declaring the proclamation of the Act as of June 15, 2016. In a Service Nova Scotia news release on June 15, 2016, it  indicated that Department of Business is working with stakeholders to develop a social enterprise strategy.

The Act received Royal Assent on December 6, 2012. The Act permits companies incorporated under the Companies Act to be designated as Community Interest Companies (“CICs”) if they pursue profits while advancing social causes that are traditionally associated with not-for-profit organizations, such as promotion of health or social and environmental concerns. CICs are required to declare their “community purpose,” provide a community interest plan and report on their plan annually. A “community purpose” means “a purpose beneficial to (i) society at large, or (ii) a segment of society that is broader than the group of persons who are related to the community interest company. The Act also clarified that the following are examples of a community purpose: “providing health, social, environmental, cultural, educational or other services, but does not include a political purpose” or a purpose prescribed under the Act. CICs are restricted in the amount of dividends they may declare, how assets are distributed on dissolution and are required to make financial statements public.

However, the Income Tax Act was not amended to provide special tax relief or tax status for CICs. As such, CICs must comply with the rules for non-for-profits or pay tax as a for-profit entity under the Income Tax Act.

Rowan’s Law Receives Royal Assent

On June 9, 2016, Bill 149, Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee Act (“Rowan’s Law”) received royal assent in the Ontario legislature. As discussed in our January 2016 Charity & NFP Law Update, Rowan’s Law was named after 17-year-old Rowan Stringer, who tragically died after sustaining a concussion while playing rugby. This is the first concussion protocol legislation that has been passed for young athletes in Canada. This new law will be of interest to any charities and not-for-profits that run activities for young athletes, such as: sporting events; helping to operate leagues or sporting organizations; or, assist in establishing standards and rules for the carrying out of the sporting activity.

The focus of Rowan’s Law is to provide education regarding sports-related concussions to athletes, parents and coaches. The legislation would establish a mandatory protocol that dictates when an athlete must be removed from the applicable sport if a concussion is suspected. Further, it also mandates that medical clearance must be obtained before athletes are permitted to return to his or her chosen sport after sustaining a concussion. An advisory committee will also be established to provide recommendations to the legislature based on findings from the inquest into Rowan Stringer’s death. The committee will be composed of members appointed by the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health and Long Term Care, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

As mentioned above, it is the first legislation of its kind in Canada and follows Bill 39, Education Amendment Act (Concussions), 2012, which was introduced in 2012 and would have established similar rules for teachers and coaches, but died on the Order Paper in October 2012 when the Legislature was prorogued. Charities and not-for-profits that provide services for children should remain attentive to the Rowan’s Law and the recommendations that its advisory committee will make because they may need to adopt new policies to ensure compliance.

Anti-Terrorism & Money-Laundering Update

Bill C-22 To Establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee Passes First Reading

On June 16, 2016, Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts (“Bill C-22”) passed its First Reading in Parliament. If passed, Bill C-22 would establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (the “Committee”) and determine its composition and mandate. It would also establish the Committee’s Secretariat, which would assist the Committee in fulfilling its mandate and make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

The Committee would be given the capacity to monitor classified security and intelligence activities and subsequently report findings to the Prime Minister. Bill C-22 states that the mandate of the Committee would be to review:

  • the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
  • any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and
  • any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.

Although the Committee would be precluded from reviewing activities if such a review would be deemed “injurious to national security”, charities and not-for-profits that have concerns about the far-reaching effects of Bill C-51 and the dearth of oversight for broad state investigative powers may wish to follow the progress of Bill C-22.

Revisions Announced to FATF Recommendation 8

From June 22-24, 2016, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) held a plenary meeting in Busan, Korea, which, among other things, resulted in revision of FATF Recommendation 8 and its interpretive note to protect non-profit organisations from terrorist financing abuse (the “Revision”) which has been incorporated into the FATF’s main Recommendation document. The FATF is an inter-governmental body responsible for setting and monitoring international standards for combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and Recommendation 8 deals specifically with combating the abuse of non-profit organizations, internationally.

Of particular note is the fact that the Revision has amended the Recommendation to remove the identification of the Non-Profit Organization (“NPO”) sector as “particularly vulnerable” to terrorist abuse and money laundering concerns. The Revision follows a Consultation and Dialogue Meeting that the FATF held with NPOs on April 18, 2016, in Vienna to encourage “open dialogue with representatives from a variety of NPOs on the FATF’s ongoing work to revise its standards on non-profit organizations” (as discussed in our April 2016 Charity & NFP Law Update). This meeting followed a November 2015 call for public consultation on the Interpretive Note to Recommendation 8 (the “Interpretive Note”) that sought to garner input to refine its terminology and application to the NPO sector.

With regard to the role of NPOs in terrorist financing, the FATF previously released “The FATF Typologies Report on Risk of Terrorist Abuse in Non-Profit Organizations” (the “Typologies Report”) in June 2014, which identifies factors that contribute to abuse of NPOs (as discussed in our July/August 2014 Charity & NFP Law Update). The Typologies Report was a precursor for the preparation of a recently revised best practices paper published by the FATF in June 2015, “Best Practices Paper on Combatting the Abuse of Non-Profit Organizations (Recommendation 8)” (the “Best Practices Paper”) that discusses strategies for implementing the recommendation (as discussed in our July/August 2015 Charity & NFP Law Update).

A more extensive analysis of the changes to the more complex Interpretive Note to Recommendation 8 will follow in a future Update.

Carters Webinar Series – Spring 2016

Seminar Materials available.​On Demand / Replay available.

Carters held its Spring 2016  Webinar Series to assist charities and not-for-profits with current and essential legal issues. These complimentary one-hour webinars provided a detailed and practical explanation of the following topics.

Thursday, April 21st – 1:00 – 2:00 pm ET
Going into Business? The Social Enterprise Spectrum for Charities
Terrance S. Carter, B.A., LL.B., TEP, Trade-mark Agent
Author, speaker and counsel on legal issues involving charities and not-for-profits and editor of www.charitylaw.ca. Carters, Orangeville, Ontario.
Seminar Materials and On Demand / Replay available.
Wednesday, May 4th – 1:00 – 2:00 pm ET
Going Social: Using Social Media to Accomplish Your Mission
Sepal Bonni, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D., Trade-mark Agent
Counsel on legal issues involving charities and not-for profit organizations in the areas of intellectual property and privacy law. Carters, Ottawa, Ontario.
Seminar Materials available ​On Demand / Replay available.
Wednesday, May 18th – 1:00 – 2:00 pm ET
Human Rights Challenges in the Workplace
Barry W. Kwasniewski, B.B.A., LL.B. – Counsel on legal issues involving charities and not-for-profit organizations with expertise in employment, human rights and insurance law. Carters, Ottawa, Ontario.
Seminar Materials and ​On Demand / Replay available.
Wednesday, June 8th – 1:00 – 2:00 pm ET
The ABC’s of GST/HST for Charities & NPOs
Linsey E.C. Rains, B.A., J.D. – Speaker and counsel on legal issues involving charities and not-for-profit organizations. Formerly with Canada Revenue Agency. Carters, Ottawa, Ontario.
Seminar Materials available soon and ​On Demand / Replay available.

 

May 2016 Charity & NFP Law Update

NFP in Norway Found Liable for Employee Taken Hostage in Conflict Area
CRA News
Testamentary Charitable Giving: The New Regime (Revised)
Tax Court Comments on CRA’s Timeliness in Detecting Fraud
CRA View on FMV of Receipts for Gifts of Property to a Municipality
CRA Responds to Question on Spousal Sharing of Charitable Gifts by Will
CRA Rules Tribal Council is Exempt from Part I Tax
Woman Commits Fraud with Not-for-profit Organization
Finance Introduces Legislation to Implement OECD Common Reporting Standards
New Extra-Provincial Registration Chapter Released in Corporate and Practice Manual
Nova Scotia Introduces Food Bank Tax Credit for Farmers
Two New Leaves of Absence in the Works for Ontario
Quebec Proposes Draft Regulations Regarding Trademarks on Signage
Carters is Pleased to Announce a New Partner


May 2016 Charity & NFP Law Update

NFP in Norway Found Liable for Employee Taken Hostage in Conflict Area

In November 2015, an Oslo District Court in Norway found that the not-for-profit Norwegian Refugee Council (“NRC”) was liable for gross negligence in failing to meet its duty of care to its employee, Steve Dennis, who had been injured and kidnapped. NRC is an organization that provides food, shelter and education to refugees all over the world, including conflict zones in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. However, while working for the NRC in 2012, Mr. Dennis was shot and taken hostage for four days in Dabaab, Kenya. Since the time of his rescue, the court found that Mr. Dennis has suffered significant physical and psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, for which the court awarded $695,000 in damages. A resource link to an English translation of the decision can be found here, as posted by the Oslo District Court.

In its decision, which has received significant international attention, the court found that “aid organizations are major employers with the same responsibility for their employees as other employers.” In this particular case, NRC had sent Mr. Dennis to Kenya despite expert reports about increased possibility of kidnappings and violence in the area. Furthermore, NRC had previously conducted an internal security review and had found internal weaknesses in its own capabilities to respond to those threats. Although NRC is a widely respected not-for-profit organization in Norway, the court found that despite its “good deeds” the organization’s employees “must however know that their employer covers their back with a satisfactory handling of their security and that they will be taken care of if anything happens.” No appeal of the court’s decision has been announced to date.

Canadian charities and not-for-profits need to be aware of this developing case law, as it is not inconceivable that a similar finding could be reached in Canada if similar facts were to arise. Not-for-profits and charities alike owe their employees, volunteers and potentially agents a duty of care and could be found to be liable in negligence as NRC was in this case. This duty of care to employees and volunteers (among others) exists and needs to be managed effectively, particularly when an organization’s purpose is delivering often life-saving aid and resources in potentially dangerous areas of the world. Addressing the inherent risks associated with many international not-for-profit’s programs must be adequately addressed through due diligence and risk assessment procedures to protect the organization, its charitable property (if it is a charity) and its volunteers, employees and agents. Failing to take proactive action to address varying risks present in different areas of operations exposes an organization and its directors to potentially both civil (like the situation of NRC) and even criminal liability. Just as in the case of NRC, the liability of the organization is ultimately based on how it addressed (or failed to address) risk and liability prior to an event such as kidnapping or injury. There is no defence or leniency for organizations simply because of the organization’s highly laudable and potentially life-saving programs, and the liability cannot be addressed simply ‘after the fact’ in responding to situations. The risks are there, and must be addressed in advance, just as any other for-profit organization, particularly those operating internationally and in zones of varying level of risk and danger.