Sole jurisdiction over appeals related to revocation decisions lies with the Federal Court of Appeal
In a recent decision, the Federal Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) publication of a notice that revoked the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund of Canada.
The applicant, the Jewish National Fund, filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking to challenge the CRA’s decision to publish a notice of intention to revoke (NITR) its charitable registration in the Canada Gazette, which resulted in the revocation of its charitable status.
The applicant argued that the CRA acted unfairly by publishing the NITR before it had exhausted its right to appeal. It claimed that the publication breached its legitimate expectations, which it said arose from the CRA’s longstanding practice of delaying revocation notices until all appeals were resolved. The applicant requested the Federal Court to compel the CRA to issue a retraction in the Canada Gazette to restore its charitable status.
The Attorney General of Canada, representing the CRA, opposed the motion and argued that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The attorney general claimed that the publication of the NITR was not a separate decision but a procedural step flowing from the CRA’s earlier revocation decision. That decision, the attorney general asserted, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal under the Income Tax Act.
The Federal Court agreed with the attorney general and ruled that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s motion. The court held that the statutory scheme under the Income Tax Act provides a complete procedural framework for addressing charitable revocation disputes. This framework grants the Federal Court of Appeal sole jurisdiction over appeals and matters related to revocation decisions.
The court determined that the publication of the NITR was not a distinct decision but merely an action implementing the CRA’s earlier determination to revoke the applicant’s charitable status. The court noted that the Income Tax Act explicitly excludes the Federal Court’s jurisdiction in such matters.
The applicant claimed that changes to the CRA’s administrative practices had created unfairness in its specific case. It argued that the CRA had previously adhered to a policy of delaying revocation notices until appeals were resolved, but it had deviated from this practice without sufficient notice. The CRA acknowledged that its practices had changed since 2019 to adopt a risk-based compliance approach. However, it maintained that these changes fell within its discretion under the statutory framework.
The court declined to address whether the applicant satisfied the legal test for a mandatory injunction because the jurisdictional issue was dispositive. The court acknowledged the applicant’s concern about a possible gap in the procedural framework but stated that addressing such issues lies with parliament or the Federal Court of Appeal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion.
