the court (let alone the donor) cannot give the PGT directions as
to how to conduct the investigation or what specific questions
need to be answered: Stahl v. Ontario SPCA (1989), 70 O.R. (2d)
355,  O.J. No. 1794 (Dist. Ct.). Thus, the list of specific
requests submitted by Faas is irrelevant; the investigation under
s. 6 of the Act is not a mechanism by which a donor can gain
information about the recipient of its funds.
 In general, “[t]he Court must remain mindful that an
investigation under the Act is disruptive and costly”: Boldrini v.
Hamilton Naturalists’ Club,  O.J. No. 3321, 1995
CarswellOnt 3756 (Gen. Div.), at para. 4. Accordingly, “inquiries
under the Charities Accounting Act should not be initiated lightly.
Charities are entitled to a presumption that they are complying
with the law and they should not quickly be subjected to the disruption and expense of such an inquiry”: Stahl, supra, at para. 11.
The PGT’s power to investigate is to be invoked on reasonable and
probable grounds and not on the basis of conjecture, surmise, or
groundless accusations (Boldrini, supra, at para. 3), nor does the
PGT have jurisdiction to investigate “administrative wrongdoings”
as opposed to financial matters: Schoen (Re),  O.J. No. 2335,
1987 CarswellOnt 433 (Dist. Ct.), at para. 8.
 Finally, this court has made it clear that, “. . . intervention
[under the Act] must not be simply for the sake of meddling. It is to
be invoked only where there is real mischief”: Bloorview Childrens
Hospital Foundation v. Bloorview MacMillan Centre,  O.J. No.
521, 22 B.L.R. (3d) 182 (S.C.J.), at para. 18. That mischief, again,
is mischief to the public at large, and cannot be a personality-driven dispute: Ontario (Public Guardian and Trustee) v. Unity
Church of Truth,  O.J. No. 1291, 59 O.T.C. 120 (Gen. Div.).
The Act is explicit that the granting of an order such as that
sought by Faas is governed by the public interest being served,
and not by the interest of the complainant: Boldrini, supra, at
 Faas’ application falls into the very category that the cases
have excluded from the PGT’s jurisdiction. The complaint does
not assert that CAMH has failed to use the Faas donation for
CAMH’s own charitable objects. Instead, it questions whether the
donation has been used in a way that conforms with Mr. Faas’
personal vision of the funded program. That is a quintessential private interest, not a public one. Compliance with the National
Standard, co-operation with U.S.-based recipients of Faas donations, the shorter or longer time frame of the Well@Work program,
etc. do not raise any question as to whether the charitable objects
of CAMH are being pursued.