http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/99312/index.do 
Humanics Institute v. Canada (November 17, 2014 – 2014 FCA 265) was an appeal from the Minister’s refusal to grant charitable registration to the Humanics Institute.
[2] The Minister denied the appellant’s application on the basis it had not demonstrated, as required under subsection 149.1(1), that all its resources were devoted to charitable activities carried on by the organization itself. This conclusion was based on several premises. First, the appellant’s purposes and objects were broad and vague. Second, the activities proposed in support of its stated purposes, particularly the plan to build and maintain a sanctuary and sculpture park, would not advance religion or education in the charitable sense. Third, the appellant’s proposed funding of a foreign scholarship would constitute neither the organization’s own activities nor the funding of a qualified donee.
Humanics argued that the Minister had applied an overly narrow definition of religion by requiring “faith in and worship of a supreme being”. The Court of Appeal disagreed:
[5] In my view, the Minister made no such error. Accepting that the Minister had to proceed on proper principle, the concept of “Oneness of Reality” advanced by the appellant is so broad and vague as to be practically unascertainable. The appellant has failed to show the existence of a “particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship” or a body of teachings and doctrine that would bring the concept which it promotes within the legal acceptation of the word religion (Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 at para. 39).
Moreover the court held that Humanics had failed to provide the Minister with “detailed and credible plans” for its proposed activities.
Humanics’ argument based on procedural fairness was rejected:
[9] In alleging procedural unfairness, the appellant argues that the Minister demonstrated a “closed mind” to its application and also denied the appellant any opportunity to respond to certain information gathered in the course of the Minister’s investigation. The first allegation rests entirely on general assertions that find no support on the record. The appellant has not shown, for instance, that the Minister ignored its submissions or took a dismissive attitude towards the appellant. The second allegation is of no relevance to this appeal, as the Minister’s decision was reasonably justified without any reference to the material in question (Lord’s Evangelical Church of Deliverance and Prayer of Toronto v. Canada, 2004 FCA 397, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1984 at para. 18).
Similarly its Charter challenges failed. The section 2(a) claim [freedom of religion] failed because there was no evidence that the Minister’s decision “objectively interferes with the appellant’s freedom of religion”. The section 2(b) claim [freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication] failed for want of “any supporting argument”. The section 15 claim [equality] failed since the courts have held that not-for-profit organizations are not “individuals” for the purposes of section 15.
[13] Moreover, as the above discussion illustrates, the Minister’s refusal was not based simply on a distinction between the beliefs promoted by the appellants and some other set of beliefs. Rather, the appellant failed to show how it would promote those beliefs, and therefore failed to meet the registration requirements under the Act.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.