Citation: 2026 TCC 97
Date: 20260522
Docket: 2022-759(IT)G
BETWEEN:
TINA CASSIDY,
Appellant,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Graham J.
[1] By order dated March 19, 2026, I gave eleven taxpayers who had participated in the Global Learning and Gifting Initiative donation program (“GLGI”) the chance to explain why their appeals should not be struck without leave to amend for abusing the Court’s process.
[2] One of those taxpayers withdrew his appeal. One conceded the GLGI portion of his appeal. One did not respond by the deadline and, as a result, I have struck his appeal without leave to amend.
[3] The remaining eight taxpayers all filed written submissions. None of them satisfied me that they would be raising new facts or new arguments that could somehow overcome what I described in my Order as the donative intent problem. Similarly, none of them satisfied me that their appeal involves some other issue over which the Court has jurisdiction. They simply made the same stale arguments that have failed in this Court time and again – arguments that it would be an abuse of this Court’s process to allow to proceed.
[4] I will address the specific arguments raised by the Appellant, Tina Cassidy below.
A. Donative Intent
[5] Ms. Cassidy argues that she is a good person who cares about others in her community and has previously made donations to charities. Many GLGI taxpayers who have appeared before the Court have made the same argument. It does not work.
[6] Donative intent is determined on a donation-by-donation basis. Ms. Cassidy’s general character or previous charitable gifts are irrelevant to the question of whether she had donative intent in respect of her involvement in GLGI just as her lack of donative intent in GLGI would have been irrelevant to any legitimate gift that she made.
[7] GLGI taxpayers frequently tell the Court that they have previously made charitable donations. What these taxpayers fail to mention is that the charities that received those donations gave them receipts for the amount of cash they donated, not an amount three to eight times greater than that. They came away from those donations poorer, not richer.
[8] In summary, Ms. Cassidy has not satisfied me that her appeal raises any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue.
B. Other Arguments
[9] Ms. Cassidy raises a number of other arguments. None of them is new. I will address them briefly.
Scammed
[10] Like many of the GLGI taxpayers who have appeared before the Court, Ms. Cassidy asserts that she was scammed by the operators of GLGI. While that is likely true, it does not change the fact that Ms. Cassidy had no donative intent.
Due Diligence
[11] Ms. Cassidy submits she has no formal education in financial or tax matters and that she simply assumed that the CRA properly vetted charitable programs like GLGI. In other words, she says she was duly diligent.
[12] Ms. Cassidy has not asserted that the reassessments were issued beyond the normal reassessment period or that she was assessed gross negligence penalties. Accordingly, her due diligence or lack thereof in deciding to participate in GLGI is irrelevant.
[13] She says that she takes “great offence at the suggestion that [she] knowingly participated in a tax scam, or that [she] ought to have known it was a tax scam”
. No one is saying that Ms. Cassidy knowingly or recklessly did anything. In fact, those things are irrelevant.
[14] If the auditor thought Ms. Cassidy claimed the donations knowingly or recklessly, they would have assessed a gross negligence penalty equal to 50% of the tax she avoided. That did not happen.
Ability to Pay
[15] Ms. Cassidy says that she does not have the ability to pay the amount she has been reassessed. She wants the chance to explain her financial circumstances to a trial judge.
[16] The question the Court has to decide is whether Ms. Cassidy had donative intent. Her financial circumstances are irrelevant to that question. The Court does not have the power to waive or reduce a person’s taxes because they cannot afford to pay.
Day In Court
[17] Ms. Cassidy asserts that it would be unfair to deprive her of her day in Court but she does not explain why other than that she wants the chance to make the above arguments. She does not address the concerns I set out in my Order concerning consistency, judicial economy or finality.
[18] As I stated in my Order, the fact that Ms. Cassidy has not personally had a chance to make the same arguments about the same facts is far outweighed by the potential risks to the integrity of the judicial system of allowing her appeal to continue.
C. Conclusion
[19] Based on all of the foregoing, Ms. Cassidy’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
Signed this 22nd day of May 2026.
“David E. Graham”
Email this Content