“39 In order to define religious freedom, we must first ask ourselves what we mean by “religion”. While it is perhaps not possible to define religion precisely, some outer definition is useful since only beliefs, convictions and practices rooted in religion, as opposed to those that are secular, socially based or conscientiously held, are protected by the guarantee of freedom of religion. Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship. Religion also tends to involve the belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power. In essence, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.”
Here, the FCA said that even if the taxpayer could qualify as representing a religion, it had to show that its proposed activities would promote that religion:
“ Even if the values promoted by the appellant do constitute a religion, however, the state of the law is such that, in order to advance a religion, there must be a targeted attempt to promote it (Fuaran Foundation v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2004 FCA 181 (CanLII),  F.C.J. No. 825 at para. 15 [Fuaran]). It is not enough to “simply make available a place where religious thought may be pursued” (ibidem).
“ Though the appellant claims that it will actively promote religion by “initiating and supporting multi-religious, educational programs and services and will organize lectures, workshops and seminars” (appellant’s memorandum at para. 24), this Court has held that merely expressing aspirations does not entitle an applicant to charitable status (Sagkeeng Memorial Arena Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2012 FCA 171 (CanLII),  F.C.J. No. 827 at para. 8). Rather, the Minister may require the applicant to provide detailed and credible plans for the latter’s proposed activities (ibidem at para. 9).The Minister did so in this case, and determined that the appellant had failed to meet this requirement. The appellant has not demonstrated that this determination was unreasonable.”
See Humanics Institute v. Canada (National Revenue), 2014 FCA 265