Bill 301 amends The Westminster United Church Foundation Incorporation Act to (1) replace “Chairman” with “Chair” in specified trustee-appointment clauses, (2) permit the Vice‑Chair of the General Board of Westminster United Church to serve as the foundation trustee when the immediate past Chair position is vacant, and (3) replace the dissolution rule so that, after paying debts, the foundation’s remaining assets are distributed to registered charities chosen by the foundation’s board. The Act comes into force on royal assent.
For counsel, board members, and charity advisers, the bill tidies up internal governance language and eliminates ambiguity about who fills a specific trustee seat during a vacancy, while giving the foundation’s trustees express authority to select charitable recipients on dissolution. That change concentrates decision-making power in the board at a moment when donor intent, CRA rules, and potential third‑party claims may still be live issues.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill updates trustee appointment language by replacing “Chairman” with “Chair” and specifying that the immediate past Chair—or, if that position is vacant, the Vice‑Chair of the General Board—fills a trustee slot. It also replaces the foundation’s dissolution provision so remaining assets, after debts, go to other registered charities as determined by the board.
Who It Affects
The amendments apply only to the Westminster United Church Foundation, its board of trustees, and the General Board of Westminster United Church; they also directly affect any registered charities that could receive the foundation’s assets on dissolution and the legal advisers who must document and implement distributions.
Why It Matters
The changes remove wording ambiguity, modernize gendered terminology, and give the foundation’s trustees explicit discretion over asset disposition on winding up—shifting a potentially court-supervised step into internal board control and raising practical compliance questions for charity counsel.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 301 makes three targeted changes to the private incorporation statute that governs the Westminster United Church Foundation. First, it modernizes internal language by replacing “Chairman” with the neutral term “Chair” in two trustee-appointment clauses; that is a straightforward textual update with no substantive policy shift.
Second, it revises the clause that identifies which member of the church’s General Board serves as a foundation trustee: the statute now names the immediate past Chair as the designee, and, if that post is vacant, the General Board’s Vice‑Chair fills the role. That creates a clear, predictable rule for filling that particular seat when the immediate past Chair position is unoccupied.
Third and most consequential, the bill replaces the foundation’s dissolution rule. Under the new text, after the foundation pays its debts and liabilities, the board must distribute remaining assets to other registered charities of its choosing.
The change removes any prior ambiguity about default recipients and places the task of selecting charities squarely with the trustees rather than, for example, requiring court direction or prescribing a statutory recipient class.Practically, the trustees gain explicit authority to designate recipients, but they do not gain unlimited freedom: federal charity law and any donor-imposed restrictions continue to bind how assets may be used. The statute does not add procedural steps for selecting recipients (no court approval requirement, no mandated public notice, no listing of eligibility criteria beyond “registered charities”), so the trustees and their legal advisers will need to document the decision-making process carefully to demonstrate compliance with donor intent, provincial statute, and Canada Revenue Agency expectations.
Finally, the Act is narrowly targeted: it amends only the Westminster United Church Foundation Incorporation Act and comes into force on the day of royal assent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the words "Chairman" with "Chair" in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 8(1), modernizing gendered language.
Clause (d) of subsection 8(1) is rewritten so the immediate past Chair of the General Board serves as the foundation trustee, or if that position is vacant, the Vice‑Chair of the General Board serves instead.
Section 14 (Dissolution) is replaced to require that after paying debts and liabilities, the foundation’s remaining assets be distributed to other registered charities as determined by the board.
The amendments apply solely to the Westminster United Church Foundation Incorporation Act and do not create a general rule for other Manitoba charities.
The Act takes effect on the day it receives royal assent, so no transition period or delayed commencement is specified.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amendment applies to the named Act
This opening clause simply states that the succeeding changes modify the Westminster United Church Foundation Incorporation Act (R.S.M. 1990, c. 212). Practically, it confirms this is a private or local amendment limited to that corporate statute rather than a province-wide reform to nonprofit law.
Gender-neutral title: 'Chair' replaces 'Chairman'
Clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 8(1) are amended to replace the term "Chairman" with "Chair." This is a textual modernization; it does not alter who holds or how the position is filled, but it removes gendered language from the statutory appointments that identify ex officio or designated trustees.
Filling a trustee seat when the immediate past Chair is absent
The former clause (d) is replaced to name the immediate past Chair of the General Board as the designated trustee. Critically, the new text builds a fallback: if the immediate past Chair position is vacant, the Vice‑Chair of the General Board will serve on the foundation’s board. This creates an explicit succession rule for that specific trustee slot and reduces uncertainty about vacancies in that role.
New dissolution rule: board-directed distribution to registered charities
Section 14 is repealed and replaced with a concise dissolution rule. Once the foundation dissolves and pays creditors, the remaining assets must go to other registered charities as determined by the foundation’s board. The statute leaves selection criteria, documentation requirements, and timing to the trustees rather than prescribing court oversight or naming particular beneficiary organizations.
Commencement on royal assent
This short clause makes the Act effective immediately upon receiving royal assent. There is no staged implementation or delegated rulemaking tied to the amendments, so boards and advisers should treat the changes as operative the moment the Act is assented.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Westminster United Church Foundation trustees — gain clearer statutory language on who occupies a specific trustee seat when the immediate past Chair post is vacant, reducing governance disputes over that appointment.
- General Board of Westminster United Church — its Vice‑Chair now has a defined pathway to serve on the foundation board during certain vacancies, preserving the General Board’s representation.
- Registered charities (potential recipients) — receive a clearer avenue to be designated as dissolution beneficiaries by the foundation’s board rather than relying on a court-supervised distribution or pre-set statutory recipients.
- Legal and compliance advisers to the foundation — receive a cleaner statutory framework to advise on trustee appointments and dissolution distributions, reducing ambiguity in client counseling.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foundation board of trustees — assumes concentrated responsibility for selecting dissolution recipients and must manage compliance risks, donor restrictions, and documentation of distributions without statutory procedural guidance.
- Potential recipient charities — may incur administrative burdens and compliance obligations when accepting large asset transfers (due diligence, CRA reporting, and integration of restricted assets).
- Donors or their estates (indirectly) — donor intent could be harder to enforce if the board’s discretion at dissolution is broad and no court review is mandated, raising the risk that donated funds end up used contrary to donor expectations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between giving the foundation’s trustees explicit, flexible authority to direct assets on dissolution (which preserves local control and speed) and the need to protect donor intent, maintain public accountability, and ensure distributions comply with federal charity rules—objectives that typically favor external oversight or more prescriptive statutory safeguards.
The bill centralizes discretion over post-dissolution asset transfers in the foundation’s board without adding procedural safeguards. That creates an efficiency advantage—boards can select recipients quickly and privately—but it also raises questions about how trustees will reconcile their choices with donor-imposed restrictions, cy-près principles, and Canada Revenue Agency expectations for charitable property on winding-up.
The statute’s silence on verification procedures for recipient charities, conflict-of-interest rules for trustees making selections, or recordkeeping means implementation will rely heavily on internal governance documents and adviser judgment.
Another practical tension concerns the meaning of "registered charities" in this provincial act. In Canada, charitable registration is federal (Income Tax Act) and can be revoked; the bill does not require recipients to be registered at the time of transfer nor address what happens if a chosen organization loses registration between selection and distribution.
Finally, while the succession rule for the trustee seat reduces vacancy risk, it subtly changes the composition dynamics of the board by elevating the Vice‑Chair as a fallback—something that could matter in close governance votes or when the General Board’s leadership structure changes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.