Canadian Centre for Food Integrity

It spent $10,956 more than it took in, drawing down the difference. Neither is good or bad on its own — charities hold reserves, run capital campaigns, and spend down endowments, and the return does not say which.

• Charitable programs85.0%
• Management and administration15.0%

This charity did not report a fundraising figure. That is not the same as zero. Only one charity in five reports a fundraising figure at all, and the return does not require it.

Canadian Centre for Food Integrity reported spending 85.0% of its expenditure on charitable programs. Among the 74 charities registered under agriculture that reported the same line for 2024, the middle of the range is 82.2%, and this charity sits at the 55th percentile — above 55% of them.

That is a position in a distribution, not a verdict. Charities allocate costs differently on the same form, and a lower share often reflects how a return was filled in rather than how the money was spent. The cohort counts only charities that reported this line — about a quarter of the register does not, and they are not in the comparison at all.

Canadian charities report how many of their ten highest-paid positions fall in each pay band. Not who they are, and not what any one person earns — the return does not collect that, and it cannot be worked out from what follows.

• 1$1–39,999
• 1$40,000–79,999
• 2$80,000–119,999
• 1$120,000–159,999

5 positions reported in total. The form asks only about the ten highest-paid, so a smaller number means the charity reported fewer compensated positions than that.

Charities that hold significant property not used in their programs must spend a minimum amount each year — the disbursement quota. Canadian Centre for Food Integrity files this schedule; most charities do not.

Charities may also carry a disbursement excess forward for five years, so a single year is a slice of a longer calculation rather than the whole of it.