Hey Ray, Won't any non-profit incorporated before the new act be grandfathered? 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. And I can see the appeal of the museum direction . . . *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. Ray, is there any indication the requirements for charity status may also change? 2010/1/24 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> -- Michael Dickhout Executive Director School Partners Foundation, Inc.

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

Jeffery Nichols wrote: 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. Ray

On 01/02/2010 6:01 PM, Gerald A wrote: 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. -- Coren / Marc

Gerald A wrote: There is a detailed discussion at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-024-eng.html . Other links on the Rev Can website are also helpful. See http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/menu-eng.html for main page about charities. I haven't yet found anything online about these documents, but IIRC they are a matter of public record, and available for the cost of making copies. Financial records are available on line through the above link. They are required to make an annual filing somewhat akin to an income tax return. These filings show details of expenditure, and are used to determine whether the organisation has met its disbursement quota. How we spend the money will be key. Absolutely! The more loose ends the greater the likelihood of being rejected. If I may draw an analogy with current US politics, those who want to reform the health care system need to learn when they have extracted as much as they can, and secure those gains. That still leaves a lot of necessities unresolved, but that's still better than the risk of going nowhere. Ray