This episode is a guide for registered charities in Canada who want to make grants to organizations that do not have charitable status.
We explain the legal framework and requirements for making these grants, which were recently amended to allow for more flexible and collaborative partnerships.
It outlines the key legal terms, such as "qualifying disbursement" and "grantee organization," and then outlines the "accountability requirements" that charities must meet when making grants.
We emphasize the importance of due diligence, recommending a process for charities to assess risk and apply appropriate accountability tools, such as research, written agreements, and reporting plans.
The ultimate purpose of the discussion is to provide charities with the tools and information they need to make grants to non-qualified donees in a responsible and compliant manner, ensuring that their resources are used effectively for charitable purposes and that public trust in the charitable sector is upheld.
This episode is sponsored by B.I.G. Charity Law Group Professional Corporation, a Charity Law Firm serving charity and not-for-profit clients across Canada (https://www.charitylawgroup.ca/ 416-488-5888) and B.I.G. Charity Accounts Group, a firm serving Canadian charities with all their financial statements and tax filing needs.
This episode is a guide for registered charities in Canada who want to make grants to organizations that do not have charitable status.
We explain the legal framework and requirements for making these grants, which were recently amended to allow for more flexible and collaborative partnerships.
It outlines the key legal terms, such as "qualifying disbursement" and "grantee organization," and then outlines the "accountability requirements" that charities must meet when making grants.
We emphasize the importance of due diligence, recommending a process for charities to assess risk and apply appropriate accountability tools, such as research, written agreements, and reporting plans.
The ultimate purpose of the discussion is to provide charities with the tools and information they need to make grants to non-qualified donees in a responsible and compliant manner, ensuring that their resources are used effectively for charitable purposes and that public trust in the charitable sector is upheld.
This episode is sponsored by B.I.G. Charity Law Group Professional Corporation, a Charity Law Firm serving charity and not-for-profit clients across Canada (https://www.charitylawgroup.ca/ 416-488-5888) and B.I.G. Charity Accounts Group, a firm serving Canadian charities with all their financial statements and tax filing needs.
Exploring the ins-and-outs of Canadian Charity Law in a way that can be understood by the layperson, including Charity Registration, Not-for-Profit Incorporation, Charity Governance, Charity Fundraising, Tax Receipting, and much more!
David:
Hey, everyone. Get ready for a fascinating new development in the world of Canadian charities.
Rachel:
It's about how they can now make grants to nonqualified dunnies. Yeah. It's a pretty big deal. You see, for the longest time, registered charities in Canada mostly worked with other registered charities.
David:
Right. Like a closed loop of good deeds. But I guess that made sense, especially when you're talking about those sweet tax deductible dollars.
Rachel:
Exactly. Accountability is key. Right? But this new development suggests that Canada is recognizing the incredible work being done by groups who might not have that official registered charity status. Think like grassroots initiatives, community led projects, that sort of thing.
David:
Okay. So it's like Canada is saying, hey, you don't need a fancy certificate to make a difference. I love that. But I'm guessing it's not as simple as just handing over a blank check. Right?
David:
There must be rules, guidelines, the whole 9 yards.
Rachel:
You bet. Right. And that's where this deep dive comes in handy. We're gonna unpack all of it based on this guidance document fresh off the presses from the government of Canada.
David:
Excellent. So before we get lost in the weeds, can you give us the high level overview why is this change such a big deal?
Rachel:
Well, imagine this. A small group of passionate individuals creates an app that connects isolated seniors with local resources. This app is gaining traction helping folks combat loneliness and access support, but they don't quite fit the traditional charity mold. This new system opens doors for them to receive funding and scale their impact.
David:
That's amazing. So it's not just about more money flowing. It's about funding differently, supporting those who are closer to the issues, maybe even more nimble and innovative in their approaches.
Rachel:
Exactly. This opens a whole can of worms in a good way. It challenges the status quo of how we think about philanthropy and who gets to drive positive change.
David:
Okay. I am officially hooked. But before we get ahead of ourselves, let's talk about the nuts and bolts of these new rules. The source material this Canadian government document seems to make a clear distinction between making a grant and working through what they call intermediaries.
Rachel:
Right. And it's not just a technicality. Think of it this way. You want a beautiful mural painted in your community center. You could commission a talented local artist directly.
Rachel:
That's a grant. You're supporting their vision, their expertise.
David:
But if you hired someone to find the artist, manage the supplies, and basically oversee the entire project that's working through an intermediary
Rachel:
You got it. With a grant, the charity is essentially saying, we believe in the work you're doing, and here's some support to do more of it.
David:
So less about micromanaging, more about empowering. And I'm guessing there's less liability for the charity in a grant situation.
Rachel:
Absolutely. The grantee has the autonomy to run their show, so the charity isn't directly responsible for every decision made. But here's an interesting tidbit. The relationship between a charity and an organization isn't set in stone. They can switch from an intermediary model to a grant based one or vice versa.
David:
Interesting. So it's all about finding the best fit for the situation. But you But let's be real. When we talk about charities handling money, that's where due diligence rears its head. It's
Rachel:
not the sexiest term, but it's crucial. It's about ensuring accountability and maintaining public trust. Imagine the headlines if charity started throwing money around without any checks and balances. The source material lays out a due diligence model, a set of steps charities need to follow with an emphasis on being reasonable and consistent.
David:
Okay. Before you dive into a step by step breakdown, can you give us an example of what this due diligence might look like in the real world?
Rachel:
Sure. Imagine a charity wants to support a group building eco friendly stoves in a remote community. Due diligence would involve researching that group's history
David:
Yeah.
Rachel:
Their experience with these projects, maybe even talking to people in that community to understand the need and the potential impact.
David:
It's like checking references but on a whole other level. So it's not just about ticking boxes. It's about making sure the money will be used responsibly and effectively. I like it.
Rachel:
Exactly. It's about maximizing impact while minimizing risk, and that's where these steps come in.
David:
Okay. I'm ready to hear about these steps. Hit me with step 1.
Rachel:
Step 1 is all about alignment. How does this grant further the charity's own charitable purpose? They can't just fund any worthy cause that comes along?
David:
So if a charity focuses on, say, supporting children with disabilities, they couldn't just donate to a theater group even if it's for a good cause.
Rachel:
Exactly. It has to be a justifiable connection to their stated mission. Now this might mean a charity needs to broaden its scope or update its purpose, which is totally doable, but it needs to be legit.
David:
Makes sense. Okay. So step 1 is about staying in their lane. What about
Rachel:
step 2? Step 2, risk assessment. This is where it gets interesting because a whole bunch of factors come into play, the grantees experience, the location of the project, even the type of resources involved.
David:
Okay. Give us an example what would be considered low risk versus high risk.
Rachel:
A small short term grant to a well established Canadian organization with a proven track record. Pretty low risk, but granting a large sum to a newly formed group working in a politically unstable region, definitely high risk.
David:
Makes sense. Higher stakes, more scrutiny. So once they've assessed the risk, how does a charity decide how much you know snooping around is enough?
Rachel:
That's step 3. The level of due diligence is directly tied to the risk assessment. Low risk means simpler checks, while high risk demands a much more thorough investigation.
David:
Okay. I'm getting the hang of this. So it's not one size fits all. It's tailored to the situation. But what does this due diligence actually look like in practice?
David:
We'll delve into that right after a quick break.
Rachel:
It's not about donning a trench coat and becoming a private eye.
David:
Though that would make for an interesting charity fundraiser. Donate now and win a stakeout with our chief due diligence officer.
Rachel:
Now that's an idea. But in all seriousness, step 4 is where the rubber meets the road, applying accountability tools. The Canadian government document actually provides a whole toolbox to make sure those grant funds are used as intended.
David:
Oh, I love a good toolbox analogy. What kind of tools are we talking about here?
Rachel:
Well, first off, good old fashioned research. Before handing over any money, charities should really dig into the potential grantee, their history, their experience, their reputation. It's like checking references for a new hire, but with much higher stakes.
David:
Makes sense. You wouldn't wanna give the keys to the charity kingdom without knowing who's driving right. What else is in this accountability toolbox?
Rachel:
Clarity is king. There needs to be a crystal clear description of what the grant will fund, what charitable purpose it's tied to, and what the intended outcome should be. Everyone needs to be on the same page from the get go.
David:
So no vague promises of making the world a better place?
Rachel:
Not this time. We need specifics. And speaking of specifics, a written agreement is key, whether it's a detailed email exchange for smaller grants or a full blown legal document for bigger projects. Think of it as a road map that keeps everyone on track.
David:
A road map to impact. I like it. What other tools help navigate this journey?
Rachel:
Reporting. This can involve final reports with all the juicy details, interim check ins for longer term grants, even site visits in some cases. It's about the grantee demonstrating how they're using the funds responsibly.
David:
Transparency is key. It's like giving donors a window into the impact they're helping create. Okay. We've got research, clear descriptions, written agreements, and reporting, anything else in this magical toolbox.
Rachel:
Last but not least, documentation. Step 5 might seem boring, but it's all about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Think of it as creating a paper trail that proves the charity did their due diligence every step of the way.
David:
So if the CRA comes knocking, the charity can show them the receipts, so to speak?
Rachel:
Exactly. It protects the charity and ensures those generous donations are being used for their intended purpose.
David:
Got it. Now we've covered the 5 steps, but the source material also mentioned some special topics that add another layer of complexity. Should we brace ourselves?
Rachel:
Don't worry. It's not as scary as it sounds. These are just specific situations that require a bit of extra attention. For example, the source material points out that there are actually no limits on how much of their income charities can use for these grants to nonqualified, Demony.
David:
Wait. Really? So theoretically, a charity could direct all of its resources towards these new types of grants. That's a game changer.
Rachel:
It is, but and this is a big thing. But charities can't become puppets for other organizations or individuals. They can't just funnel money at someone else's say so.
David:
Right. That whole directed gift issue you mentioned earlier. It's like Yeah. Charity needs to maintain its own agency, its own decision making power. But how do they walk that tight rope?
Rachel:
It's all about maintaining control over how their resources are used and being transparent with donors about how those decisions are made. They can't just be a middleman blindly following orders.
David:
So a balancing act of empowering grantees while staying true to their own mission and values. What about those pooled grants you mentioned earlier? They sound like they could get messy.
Rachel:
They can be tricky. Imagine multiple charities, each with their own goals and priorities, pooling their resources for a single grant. It requires a whole other level of coordination and communication.
David:
Like trying to herd cats but with paperwork.
Rachel:
Exactly. The source material emphasizes that while pooled grants can have a huge impact, they require even stronger due diligence and meticulous documentation.
David:
Makes sense. Now onto a topic that seems particularly thorny, real estate. Granting property seems way more complicated than, say, writing a check.
Rachel:
You said it. With real estate, you're talking about a tangible asset, which brings up all sorts of questions about how it will be used, how its value might change over time, and what happens if the grantee no longer needs it.
David:
So it's not just about the initial grant. It's about the long game. Are there special rules for that?
Rachel:
The source material stresses that charities need to be extra cautious with real estate grants. They might involve stipulations for selling the property later or ensuring it continues to be used for charitable purposes even if the grantee changes.
David:
So more strings attached, so to speak. What a fascinating and complex world we're uncovering here. But before we get too deep into the weeds, I think we need to take a step back and answer the big so what question.
Rachel:
You're right. We've gone over the why and the how of these new grant making rules, but how does this impact the average person?
David:
So we've talked about charities being able to fund nonqualified dunnies. We've talked about due diligence and cat herding pooled funds.
Rachel:
And we definitely touched on those carrier pigeons.
David:
Always a crowd pleaser. But now for the big question, so what? Why should someone who isn't running a charity care about these new rules?
Rachel:
Because it's not just about charities. It's about how we as engaged citizens interact with the causes we believe in. It's about how we give and even what kinds of solutions get funded.
David:
Okay. You've peaked my curiosity. Tell me more.
Rachel:
Think about transparency. This new system with its emphasis on public reporting for grants over $5,000. It's like a window into how charities are using their resources. We can see which organizations they're supporting, the reach of their work, the specific activities being funded.
David:
So we're talking next level insight into the impact of those donation dollars.
Rachel:
Exactly. It allows for more informed giving. Maybe you've always donated to large, well known charities. But now you discover a small local organization doing incredible work, work that truly aligns with your values. This new system makes it easier to find and support those groups.
David:
So it's potentially shaking up the landscape of giving, allowing niche causes or innovative approaches to secure funding.
Rachel:
Precisely. And that's where it gets really exciting. This shift could lead to a wave of fresh problem solving.
David:
How so?
Rachel:
Think about it. Traditional charities often have their established ways of doing things, methods that have worked in the past.
David:
Tried and true, but maybe not always the best fit for every challenge.
Rachel:
Exactly. This system lets charities tap into the ingenuity of nonqualified Denny's, those groups on the ground who are often closest to the issues.
David:
So it's like injecting fresh perspectives into the world of philanthropy.
Rachel:
You got it. It's not just about giving more money. It's about funding differently, supporting those who might be better positioned to tackle specific problems in innovative
David:
ways. It's like empowering a whole new generation of change makers. Those working outside traditional structures but making a real difference.
Rachel:
Absolutely. And that's what makes this shift so significant. It's not just tweaking the rules. It's a fundamental change in how we approach social good. It's about collaboration innovation, a more inclusive approach to philanthropy.
David:
Now I understand why you find this topic so fascinating. It's like witnessing a quiet revolution in how we fund and support positive change.
Rachel:
And like any revolution, it comes with both opportunities and challenges.
David:
We've talked about the upsides, but what about the potential downsides?
Rachel:
One concern is the administrative burden on charities, especially smaller ones. Navigating this new system with its emphasis on due diligence and documentation, well, that takes resources and expertise.
David:
Especially for those used to working mainly with other qualified dumbers where the process might be less intensive.
Rachel:
Exactly. There's a learning curve. It's crucial that charities get the support they need to navigate these new waters.
David:
Otherwise, we risk a system where only larger charities benefit, which defeats the purpose of creating a more diverse and inclusive landscape.
Rachel:
Precisely. Another challenge is the risk of mission drift. Charities excited to fund new and innovative projects might stray from their core purpose.
David:
It's that balance we talked about supporting a grantee's vision while staying true to their own mission.
Rachel:
Exactly. It requires careful consideration, a clear understanding of the charity's values and goals.
David:
So it's not just about opening the funding floodgates. It's about strategic and thoughtful grant making that maximizes impact while staying true to a charity's mission.
Rachel:
Well said. And this brings us to the crucial role you, our listeners, play.
David:
Oh, how so?
Rachel:
As engaged citizens, we have a responsibility to stay informed to ask questions. We need to hold charities accountable for how they're using their resources.
David:
So it's not enough to just write a check. Right. We need to be active participants. Yeah. Understand where our donations go and what impact they have.
Rachel:
Exactly. This new system gives us more tools than ever to do that. So explore the websites of charities you support, look at their annual reports, see where their grants are going, and don't hesitate to reach out with questions or feedback.
David:
Because ultimately, a more transparent and accountable sector benefits everyone, charities, donors, and most importantly, the communities and causes we care about.
Rachel:
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's an exciting time for philanthropy. I'm eager to see what this new era of grant making brings.
David:
Me too. And on that note of hopeful curiosity, we'll wrap up this deep dive. A huge thank you to our expert for guiding us through this complex but incredibly important topic.
Rachel:
My pleasure. Always happy to geek out about charitable regulations, especially with such an engaged audience.
David:
And to our listeners, thank you for joining us. Remember, knowledge is power, especially when it comes to making a positive difference. Until next time, keep diving deep.