http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/63092/index.do 
Hall v. The Queen[1] (September 24, 2013) involved the appellant’s claim for tax credits in respect of $24,800 in donations to the International Association of Scientologists (“IAS”). The Minister denied the claim since IAS was not a registered charity. The Appellant claimed that this amounted to a violation of his rights under subsection 15(1) of the Charter:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The court sets out the conflicting positions of the parties quite succinctly:
[2] The facts are not in dispute. In 2011 the Appellant donated the sum of $24,800 to the International Association of Scientologists (“IAS”) which is involved in drug addiction education and treatment, disaster relief and other commendable charitable-like activities throughout the world; including the provision of transportation of medical staff, supplies and food in aid of the Haiti earthquake disaster a few years ago and a Drug-Free World program that works with government and community groups amongst other partners to educate at-risk kids. There is no dispute that IAS conducts what are normally considered charitable or charitable-like activities but that IAS is not a registered Charity in Canada nor apparently even applied to be.[2]
[3] The Appellant takes the position that his choice to support the organization IAS which he considers his preferred charitable organization unfairly denies him the right to a charitable tax credit while other Canadians have access to such tax credit if they choose to donate to registered charities; hence the provisions of the ITA requiring that the charity be a “qualified donee” or more simply put, a registered charity under section 149.1, is discriminatory and a violation of the above Charter provision
4] The Respondent takes the position that there is no charter violation for two main reasons; namely that there is no law that grants every contribution made to a charitable organization a tax credit and hence no-one has been directly or by effect excluded from the benefit of any such law; and in the alternative that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the government made a distinction based on any enumerated grounds set out in s. 15(1) of the Charter or any analogous grounds.
In the first instance the court held that there was no Charter breach since no one else was entitled to tax credits for donations to non-registered charities:
[7] In my view, the provision of a tax credit for contributions to a non –registered charity is not a benefit provided by subsection 118.1 of the ITA, hence subsection 15(1) of the Charter cannot be infringed. As set out in Ali v Canada 2008 FCA 190, the Federal Court of Appeal, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v British Columbia (Attorney General), held that: “the Charter will not be infringed where the benefit sought is not one that is provided by the law that is being challenged. …” How can it be discriminatory to deny the appellants a benefit that no one gets?”
Nor did the statutory scheme of regulation of registered charities offend the Charter:
[9] The scheme allows any charitable organization to apply for registration if the requirements of the ITA are met by it as part of the legislative scheme to vet and reasonably monitor those organizations that effectively ask the Canadian public to partially fund their activities through the charitable tax credit provisions. No specific group is barred from applying and the decision to do so rests with the organization itself. If an organization chooses not to avail itself of such registration or fails to meet the requirements for registration, it does not mean there is discrimination when registration is not a matter of right for everyone. Moreover, if a taxpayer chooses to contribute to an organization that is not a registered charity rather than a registered charity, his personal choice does not mean he was denied the benefit of a law that only grants tax advantages for contributions made to registered charities. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in par. 14 of Auton;
“..a legislative choice not to accord a particular benefit absent demonstration of discriminatory purpose, policy or effect does not offend the principle and does not give rise to a s. 15(1) review. This Court had repeatedly held that the legislature is under no obligation to create a particular benefit. It is free to target the social programs it wishes to fund as a matter of public policy provided the benefit itself is not conferred in a discriminatory matter.”
[10] In summary, I conclude that the benefit claimed by the Appellant cannot be viewed as a benefit provided by law and so does not fall into the Subsection 15(1) of the Charter scope; thus it is not necessary for me to further the inquiry as to whether the government made a distinction based on an enumerated ground thereunder or ground that is analogous to any of those enumerated grounds, although it is clear that the Appellant’s argument that his freedom of choice to choose which charity to contribute to is discriminated against would hardly permit me to find he has been denied equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, nor any like grounds based on any of the Appellant’s characteristics that are immutable.
In the result the taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Comment: The decision is silent on the more interesting point of whether IAS could create a Canadian entity and apply for and obtain charitable registration. If, on the other hand, the application were denied would that possibly give rise to a Charter violation?
[1] 2013 TCC 314.
[2] Although the point is not mentioned in the decision it would seem (if one is to believe Wikipedia) that IAS could not have obtained status as a registered charity since it was not created or established in Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Scientologists
See the definition of “registered charity” in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended.