IntroductionSecond Paragraph
The source coming from the peak is not appropriate as it does not support what you have written.  The article makes legal distinction between CFS BC and CFS national.  It doesn't support a broad assertion that as you say "The CFS generally referred to legally consists of 3 separate organizations, the national CFS, a provincial chapter and CFS-Services which are often collectively referred to as CFS"

Also: "The organizations generally brand themselves as CFS and do not make the distinction between the branches."
Your source does not support that statement. Also "brand" is a corporate term and not NPOV language.

Also: "In addition, it is impossible to belong to one division and not another making the CFS de-facto one organization" Is not supported by the one source you provided.

See the reliable sources policy: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;" - WP:RELY

Simon Fraser's The Peak, has a well established and long time editorial bias against CFS so I'm not sure if the article you use is even considered a reliable source.  Again check WP:RELY for all the details

This also seems to be directly related to the defederation issues in BC, the article you use as evidence seems to speak more to what went on in BC last winter.