Limehouse, ON · Charitable organization
Limehouse Presbyterian Church
Weekly church services-open to public weekly contributions to local food banks.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CANADA | C$500 |
| ACTON FOOD SHARE | C$341 |
| GEORGETOWN BREAD BASKET | C$341 |
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$341 went to new ones.
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.”
Backed again, and grew
- GBGeorgetown Bread Basket4× · 2018–2021 · C$2k · revenue +196%
- AFACTON FOOD SHARE2× · 2018–2019 · C$504 · revenue +12%
- HSHEART & STROKE FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · C$50 · revenue +39%
Funded once
- AFActon Food Shareone grant, 2018 · C$553
- AFACTON FOOD SHAREgraduatedone grant, 2020 · C$374 · revenue +59%
- CCCHURCHILL COMMUNITY CHURCHone grant, 2020 · C$25 · revenue -22%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matches that aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Provide grants and gifts of equipment to the oakville site of halton healthcare services corporation
Operates hospitals providing healthcare services to the towns of oakville milton & halton hills and their surrounding communities.
Donating to local hospital
Held raffles bake sales flower sales dinners silent auctions. funds provided necessary equipment to the hospital as prioritized by the hospital administrator.
The charity is operating a long-term care facility in the city of oakville.
Runs the auxiliary programs for milton hospital site of h alton healthcare services corp assisting staff to provide patient care. operates fundraising activities and donates the funds to the milton site of halton healthcare services corp…
Raise manage and distribute funds in support of our hospitals and cancer centre for patient care research education equipment renovations and capital expenditures.
Providing funding and support for the charitable benefit of the horizon health network's charlotte county hospital.
The foundation recieves donations which are in turn donated to the haliburton highlands health services corporaion. the haliburton highlands health services corporation is responsible for the development and operation of health services…
To provide funding to women's college hospital.
The organization provides healthy food to elementary school students from at-risk low-income or disadvantaged homes with limited or no food during weekend periods.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Milton District Hospital Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Churchill Community Church. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own CRA returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2024, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: St.Mathew's Mar Thoma Church Toronto · United Way Golden Horseshoe · Charities Aid Foundation Canada · Aqueduct Foundation · BenefAction Foundation · My Tribute Gift Foundation · Charitable Gift Funds Canada Foundation / Fonds de Bienfaisance Canada · United Way of Greater Toronto · PayPal Giving Fund Canada · Canadian Online Giving Foundation/Fondation canadienne de dons en ligne · Canadahelps Canadon
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.