https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/460868/index.do
Tudora v. The Queen (January 27, 2020 – 2020 TCC 11, MacPhee J.).
Précis: The taxpayer claimed charitable donation credits totaling $30,056 in 2005 in connection with a cash gift of $5,000 to the Global Learning Gifting Initiative Program. The program was exactly the same one that had been unsuccessful in Mariano (2015 TCC 244). MacPhee J. applied the principal of judicial comity and dismissed the appeal for the same reasons set out by Justice Pizzitelli in Mariano. Each party was to bear their own costs (this was an informal procedure appeal).
Decision: After a lengthy review of the salient facts Justice MacPhee concluded that since the Global Learning Gifting Initiative Program had been extensively examined and rejected by Justice Pizzitelli in Mariano the principle of judicial comity dictated that he follow that decision:
[41] There is no cogent reason why I should not follow the decision by Justice Pizzatelli. While I have not considered the breadth of all the matters considered in that decision, for those that I have considered, my conclusions in this matter are the same as those which was reached in Mariano.
[42] In Mariano, Justice Pizzitelli came to the following conclusion:
[49] In the end, I cannot see how any person participating in such a scheme, regardless of whether such person had an honest belief in the value of the Licences he expected to receive or not, can argue, based on the manner in which the scheme was marketed and in the makeup and integration of the Transactional Documents that deliver it, that he or she expected none other than to profit from, be enriched or not be impoverished by, such participation, and thus not have the requisite donative intent.
[43] My ruling should be and will be consistent with Mariano concerning donative intent. I find that the Appellant, as a result of his participation in this arrangement expected to be enriched. He therefore did not have the requisite donative intent.
Thus the appeal was dismissed. Each party was to bear their own costs (this was an informal procedure appeal).