{"id":6679,"date":"2024-06-20T16:01:02","date_gmt":"2024-06-20T20:01:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/varying-charitable-trust-purposes-impracticality\/"},"modified":"2025-07-10T16:21:44","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T20:21:44","slug":"varying-charitable-trust-purposes-impracticality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/social-impact\/varying-charitable-trust-purposes-impracticality\/","title":{"rendered":"Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club<\/i> decision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It\u2019s a familiar story. A charity receives a gift of property. The donor requires the charity to hold the property in trust for specific charitable purposes. Years later, the charity has other pressing needs and priorities. Many of the charity\u2019s other programs are underfunded. Let\u2019s say the cost of maintaining the trust property itself has also increased significantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can the charity change the purpose of the trust and use the property for another purpose?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under something called the \u201ccy-pr\u00e8s<\/em>\u201d doctrine, courts can change the purposes of a trust if those purposes have become impossible or impractical to achieve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An \u201cimpossible\u201d purpose is often easy to identify. For instance, if the purpose of a trust is to pay for medical equipment and beds at a certain hospital but the hospital no longer exists, it is safe to say that it is impossible to carry out the trust\u2019s stated purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if it is not impossible<\/em> to fulfill the trust\u2019s purpose \u2013 just very difficult<\/em>? Would those difficulties or challenges rise to the level of \u201cimpractical\u201d and pass the cy-pr\u00e8s<\/em> test?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent British Columbia court decision says \u201cnot so fast\u201d and reminds charities that the threshold for proving impracticality remains a very high one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Boys and Girls Club of Greater Victoria Foundation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)<\/em>, 2024 BCSC 442<\/a>, the petitioner Foundation sought a cy-pr\u00e8s<\/em> order from the BC Supreme Court to change the purposes of a trust in which the Foundation held land and two investment funds associated with the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Foundation argued that the land (on which the Foundation\u2019s sister society ran a youth wilderness camp) was underused and costly to maintain. By contrast, the sister society ran other programs that were oversubscribed and in need of more funding. The Foundation wanted the court to vary the purposes of the trusts so that the Foundation could sell the land and repurpose the funds for its other charitable needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Honourable Madam Justice Marzari declined to use the cy-pr\u00e8s<\/em> doctrine to disturb the purpose of the trusts. In the court\u2019s view, the Foundation had not proved that it was impractical for it to continue to hold the land and funds for their original specific charitable purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision will be instructive to charities seeking their own cy-pr\u00e8s<\/em> orders to vary specific charitable trust purposes on grounds of impracticality. The key takeaways from Justice Marzari\u2019s reasons are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n