http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71778/index.do 
Hassan v. The Queen (May 13, 2014 – 2014 TCC 144) was another in the recent spate of cases involving fraudulent donation receipts. Justice Boyle made short work of the taxpayer’s claim in a very pithy decision delivered from the bench:
[7] Mr. Hassan could not well describe the charity’s activities, nor describe what it did at its head office, even though he claims to have driven there almost 20 times to make cash donations. He understood it helped teenagers in Africa, and when asked about its name, said it also helped Canadian children. Neither his financial advisor, nor anyone from Operation Save Canada’s Teenagers namely Mr. Mokwe and Ms. Khan, who seemed to work tag team on this program — appeared in court to try to explain, corroborate, or help Mr. Hassan, or the Court, make any better sense of this.
[8] Mr. Hassan was given a 2009 receipt for $25,000, based upon an alleged cash donation of $300, and a pledge to pay the rest before the end of 2010. This is obviously not permitted under the Income Tax Act. I do not believe the $300 cash was paid. In any event, if it or any other amount was paid in 2009, it was to obtain a $25,000 receipt, and was therefore not a charitable gift.
[9] The receipt which was issued did not satisfy the prescribed information requirements. Among other things, the wrong name appears; there is no identification of the location of where the gift was made, at least not one that is clear; it is in the wrong amount; and may also have at least one wrong date or missing date. In fact, one of the typos on the form is in the charity’s name.
[10] It appears almost certain that this program involved a fraud on the Canadian tax system, and therefore on the Canadian public. It is not clear to me whether Mr. Hassan was complicit or merely duped. I do note he was not assessed penalties.
[11] In any event, it is my finding that he was not telling the Court the truth today about his involvement with this program. I do not accept his oral testimony that he made any of the cash donations he testified to.
…
[14] The rules of this Court allow costs to be awarded against an informal taxpayer if they have unduly delayed the resolution of the appeal. In appropriate circumstances, this can apply to appeals pursued that are totally and entirely without merit, and rely on a lack of truthfulness. In such circumstances, I am awarding $300 of costs payable by you, Mr. Hassan, to the Respondent.