http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/64565/index.do 
Carson v. The Queen[1] (October 23, 2013) is a case involving an odd fact situation:
[1] Mr. Carson appeals by way of the Informal Procedure the Minister of National Revenue’s (the “Minister”) denial of his claim for a charitable donation of $3,120 in 2009. This amount represented Mr. Carson’s estimate of the fair market value of the use by Peaceful Schools International Society (“Peaceful Schools”) of two rooms in his home over a two year period. Mr. Carson’s wife was the President of Peaceful Schools, a registered charity. She and Mr. Carson married in 2005 although since 2001 she had been using the two rooms in her property at 5532 Granville Road in Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia for the operation of Peaceful Schools. After she and Mr. Carson married, and he moved into that residence, the rooms continued to be so used, one room for an office for Peaceful Schools and the other for storing products and supplies of Peaceful Schools. Mr. Carson’s wife remained the registered owner of the matrimonial home in Granville Ferry.
The Tax Court adopted the very simple (and, it would seem, quite convincing) approach that there was no transfer of property to Peaceful Schools such as to justify the issuance of a charitable receipt:
[15] Mr. Carson did not divest himself of any right. He simply lived in the matrimonial home owned by his spouse. The rooms were being used by her for her involvement with Peaceful Schools before her marriage to Mr. Carson. Peaceful Schools used the rooms not pursuant to any lease or even pursuant to any licence, but used the rooms with the couples blessing, through their kindness, at their will, on their good graces, choose any expression you like. There was no right, certainly no transferable right, no property. Peaceful Schools could not assign this purported right to the use of the rooms. Mr. Carson gave nothing to Peaceful Schools that was a property as such. He, or his wife, simply allowed Peaceful Schools the use of the rooms. He, with his wife, could have rented the rooms – they did not. They perhaps could have granted a licence for the use of the rooms – they did not. From both a practical and legal perspective, I fail to see how any property has been transferred.
[1] 2013 TCC 353.