



COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA




Citation:



Neville v. National Foundation for Christian
  Leadership,









2014 BCCA 38




Date: 20140124

Docket: CA040695

Between:

Ken Neville and
Monica Neville

Appellants

(Plaintiffs)

And

National
Foundation for Christian Leadership and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the
Province of British Columbia

Respondents

(Defendants)




Before:



The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald

The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel

The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith




On appeal from: Supreme
Court of British Columbia, February 6, 2013
(
Neville v. National Foundation for Christian Leadership
, 2013 BCSC 183,
Vancouver Registry S061523)

Oral Reasons for Judgment




Counsel for the Appellant:



L.A. Goldbach





Counsel for the Respondent, National Foundation of Christian
  Leadership:



J.R. Shewfelt





Place and Date of Hearing:



Vancouver, British
  Columbia

January 24, 2014





Place and Date of Judgment:



Vancouver, British
  Columbia

January 24, 2014








Summary:

The trial judge did not err
in dismissing the claim that a donation was a gift, and if it were not, no
trust obligation arose. Reasons endorsed by this Court.

[1]

DONALD J.A.
: This appeal is from the dismissal of a claim
relating to a failed tax scheme.

[2]

The appellants gave $6,250 to the respondent, National Foundation for
Christian Leadership, and received a receipt for tax deduction purposes as
though the money were a donation. The Foundation warned donors that the receipt
may not be accepted as valid by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). That caveat may well
have had to do with the nature of the overall scheme which involved the
Foundations grant of a bursary to a donors child or grandchild enrolled at
Trinity Western University in an amount roughly equal to the gift.

[3]

In due course, the appellants daughter received a bursary for slightly
more than the donation. CRA rejected the appellants receipt for a reason
upheld in the tax court and Federal Court of Appeal, (the Supreme Court of
Canada refused leave), namely the absence of an arms length relationship
between the donor and the bursary recipient.

[4]

The trial judge found that the transaction between the appellants and
the foundation was a gift and, alternatively, if it was not, no unjust
enrichment occurred because the appellants got a bursary for their daughter and
a risky tax receipt; everything they had bargained for. Either way, the
appellants have no claim in trust or otherwise.

[5]

I respectfully agree with the trial judges reasons for judgment and,
like him, I am unable to see any law or policy supporting the claim. I would
dismiss the appeal.

[6]

FRANKEL J.A.
: I agree.

[7]

D. SMITH J.A.
: I agree.

[8]

DONALD J.A.
: The appeal is dismissed.

The
Honourable Mr. Justice Donald


