Court Finds Rebel News Failed to Prove It’s Real Journalism
In a significant ruling, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed a challenge brought by Rebel News Network, rejecting their application for Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) status. The decision, which highlights the distinction between journalism and activism, upheld the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) finding that Rebel News does not produce sufficient original news content to qualify as a legitimate news outlet under the Income Tax Act.
Rebel News applied for QCJO status in May 2021, seeking tax benefits and official recognition as a news organization. The CRA rejected their application, concluding that Rebel was not engaged in the production of “original news content,” a core criterion for QCJO eligibility.
According to the CRA’s analysis of Rebel’s content during a three-week period, less than 2% of the material met the standard for original news.
Justice Ann Marie McDonald, who authored the court’s decision, sided with the CRA, explaining that Rebel’s content did not adhere to journalistic standards.
“The majority of Rebel News’ content is not based on facts and multiple perspectives that are analyzed and explained by a journalist for Rebel News,” she wrote, affirming the CRA’s assessment.
Original news content
At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of “original news content.” Section 248(1)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act defines original news content as content primarily focused on matters of general interest and reports of current events, requiring multiple perspectives and fact-based reporting.
According to CRA guidelines, news content must be “written, researched, edited, and formatted by and for the organization” and be based on “facts and multiple perspectives actively pursued, researched, analyzed, and explained by a journalist.”
Justice McDonald agreed with the CRA’s evaluation that Rebel News failed to meet this standard, stating: “The original news content produced by Rebel News over the reviewed three-week period was extremely limited, consisting of just 10 out of 423 items, which falls far short of what can reasonably be considered ongoing journalistic activity.”
The court further rejected Rebel’s claim that the CRA improperly emphasized an “activist” element in its decision. Rebel had argued that the CRA imposed a new requirement by penalizing the outlet for its activist stance.
However, Justice McDonald clarified, “While Rebel may engage in advocacy and activism, that alone does not preclude it from receiving QCJO status. However, the CRA’s decision was based on the content not adhering to journalistic standards—not simply because Rebel took an activist stance.”
A key issue raised during the case was Rebel’s repeated appeals to its audience for crowdfunding legal battles, which the CRA and the court saw as a deviation from journalistic norms. The CRA Advisory Board, which reviewed Rebel’s application, had previously noted that Rebel’s reliance on fundraising for legal challenges indicated that the outlet was more engaged in activism than journalism.
“The Advisory Board determined that crowdfunding requests for legal fees was contrary to the Guidelines and the Act,” the court ruling noted.
Justice McDonald affirmed this, writing, “The role of Rebel’s founder and reporters in directly soliciting funds from their audience for legal causes was deemed inconsistent with journalistic processes, further reinforcing the CRA’s assessment.”
Two-tiered journalism
Rebel News also argued that the CRA’s decision violated their freedom of the press, as protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rebel contended that the denial of QCJO status created a “two-tiered journalism system,” where only government-approved outlets could access financial benefits, thus infringing on their right to operate independently.
The court, however, dismissed these arguments, finding no evidence that the CRA’s decision violated press freedoms. Justice McDonald wrote, “Rebel has not demonstrated how the CRA’s decision impedes their ability to function as a news organization. The refusal of QCJO status does not prevent Rebel from publishing its content or from exercising its freedom of the press.”
The ruling further stated, “The Charter argument is made without any supporting evidence. Rebel’s claims of a two-tiered system lack the factual foundation necessary to prove that their freedom of the press has been infringed by the government’s QCJO designation criteria.”
The CRA’s assessment of Rebel’s content, which focused on a three-week period, was also challenged by Rebel as being too narrow. However, the court found that this method was standard practice and gave Rebel ample opportunity to present their case.
“The CRA maintained that a three-week period is generally representative of an organization’s activities and allows the organization to present its case,” Justice McDonald explained. “Rebel itself selected the three-week period for review, and there was no suggestion that the timeframe was unrepresentative of Rebel’s typical content output.”
In its analysis, the CRA found that of the 423 news reports submitted by Rebel, 283 were not based on facts or multiple perspectives, while 135 were identified as curated or rewritten from other sources. Only 10 reports were considered original news content. This, the court ruled, justified the CRA’s conclusion that Rebel was not engaged in the production of original news content “on an ongoing basis,” as required by law.
Ultimately, the Federal Court upheld the CRA’s decision, determining that Rebel News did not meet the criteria for QCJO status. The court found the CRA’s interpretation of the law reasonable and that Rebel’s arguments regarding activism and freedom of the press were unsupported.
Justice McDonald concluded, “The CRA’s decision is reasonable, justified, and in line with the facts and the law. Rebel has not shown that it meets the statutory requirements for QCJO designation, nor has it proven that its freedom of the press has been violated.”
Information for this briefing was found via the sources mentioned. The author has no securities or affiliations related to this organization. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.
