The taxpayers were ordained rabbis who taught Judaic studies curriculum to children attending the Vancouver Hebrew Academy (the “VHA”). In denying their claims for the clergy residence deduction, on the basis that they were not in charge of or ministering to a congregation, Campbell J stated (at para. 124):
[I]n Fitch, Bowman J. narrowed the scope of “ministering” by specifically carving out an exception pertaining to teachers of religious studies [stating;]
[T]eaching may well - and frequently does - form a component of ministering, but teaching in itself is not ministering … . Nor do I think that a group of students can be said to be a congregation in the sense of an assemblage or gathering of persons to whom a minister provides spiritual counselling, advice, illumination and inspiration. … (Emphasis added)
Campbell J further found (at para 167, before again quoting Fitch, and at 199):
Even if I had been persuaded that the Appellants’ activities and duties at the VHA constituted “ministering”, I could not conclude that a class of elementary school students gathered for Jewish religious education and instruction would be a “congregation” within the meaning of paragraph 8(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. …
…[T]he VHA, as an elementary day school, cannot be categorized as a “place of worship”, nor can its students be viewed as gathering there for the purposes of religious worship. Even though the Appellants led students in prayer services … [t]he primary character of the VHA is that of a school that conforms to the requirements of the British Columbia Ministry of Education.