FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2016)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 186 times | Saved to 69 briefcases
Re Canada Trust Co and Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990), 69 DLR (4th) 321 (Ont CA).


Charitable trust established to give scholarships to white protestants and not Jews, people of colour, Catholics, etc. because White Protestants "carry civilization on their shoulders".


(1) Do these restrictions violate the public benefit requirement of charitable trusts?
(2) Is it sufficiently certain?
(3) Is it contrary to public policy?


(1) Racist provisions qualify for public benefit

(2) They are sufficiently certain because we can identify who qualifies

(3) Clearly contrary to public policy.


(1) It's a sufficiently large group to qualify for public benefit.
(2) This is a precedent condition, so it is sufficient if just some qualify for it. (Jones v T. Eaton Co; McPhail v Doulton)
-The scholarship has been applied for decades without problem.
(3) Public policy is derived from many sources (law, speeches, etc.) (Christie v York Corp.; Re Noble and Wolf; Drummon Wren)
-Human rights legislation across the country is evidence of public policy.


OHRC won. Trust defeated.


The Court very careful to limit this decision to PUBLIC associations, such as charities.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.