A Canadian registered charity advocating for the eradication of poverty successfully challenged statutory restrictions on charities’ engagement in non-partisan, ‘political activities’ in support of a charitable purpose. The court found restrictions on charities’ ability to advocate for changes to laws or policies to be an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression.
The majority Liberal government that was in power by the time the decision in this case was released had committed to reviewing the restrictions placed on charities that had been used to suppress freedom of expression by the previous government. Nevertheless, the Liberal government announced that it intended to appeal the decision of the Superior Court in this case. It proposed to amend the ITA to remove the statutory restrictions that have been found to be unconstitutional but would allow the CRA to continue to enforce common law restrictions on public policy advocacy. After significant public pressure, however, the government withdrew its appeal, allowing the Superior Court decision to stand. It also agreed to withdraw earlier proposed amendments to the ITA, introducing new amendments to the ITA, which now states explicitly that the term “charitable activities includes public policy dialogue and development activities carried on in furtherance of a charitable purpose.”
This victory by a small social rights organization was completely unexpected by mainstream legal commentators and within the broader charitable sector. The decision has been widely celebrated by people living in poverty and charities as an historic rejection of stigmatizing notions of poverty and charity, recognizing the inextricable link between the right to democratic participation and expression and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The decision is also expected to have a positive impact in other countries where similar common law restrictions on charities are still applied. CWP has emphasized, however, that the decision only applies to organizations with legitimate charitable purposes, such as the relief of poverty. The decision does not apply to organizations seeking to use charitable status to advance political agendas that do not constitute legitimate charitable purposes.
For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.
