Policy Forum: The Registered Charity Appeals Process—More Reasons (and a Few Proposals) for Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current process of challenging decisions of the Canada Revenue Agency's Charities Directorate has significant shortcomings, which are well known within the field. A series of committees and scholars have urged Parliament to increase the transparency of the directorate's decision-making processes and create a more accessible appeal process for registered charities. In this article, the author discusses two developments that have made the case for reforming the charity appeals process even more compelling than before. The first is the Supreme Court of Canada's overhaul of the judicial review framework in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019 SCC 65); the second is the trend toward public-law challenges to the registered charity regime in the superior courts. The author also outlines possible options for reform of the current Canadian model. Among other things, she considers whether elements of the English charity-law reference procedure could be accommodated within the existing registered charity regime in Canada's Income Tax Act.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".