JOHN HASSALL v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Posture
- Appeal of Reassessments / Motion Determined by Written Submissions; Appeal Struck Without Leave to Amend
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Appellant provided no new facts or arguments capable of overcoming the established donative intent problem, and his appeal raised no other issue within the Court’s jurisdiction; accordingly, the appeal was struck without leave to amend as an abuse of process.
Court disposition
Appeal struck without leave to amend; costs awarded to the Respondent.
Orders
- The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years are struck without leave to amend.
- Costs in the appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
JOHN HASSALL
Appellant Counsel: The Appellant himselfHIS MAJESTY THE KING
Respondent Counsel: Warwick Walton03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal of Reassessments / Motion Determined by Written Submissions; Appeal Struck Without Leave to Amend
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeals should be struck without leave to amend for abusing the Court’s process
- 02
Whether the Appellant raised any new facts or arguments overcoming the donative intent problem
- 03
Whether the 2013 amendments to the Income Tax Act changed the law on donative intent retroactively
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Appellant argued that the government changed the law on donative intent in 2013 with retroactive effect and that, absent that change, his purported donation to GLGI would have been valid.
- Respondent
- The Respondent relied primarily on donative intent, and alternatively on the trust not existing and the courseware never being received, the program being a sham, and the fair market value of the courseware; the new split-gifting provisions were only a final alternative argument.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Friedberg v. The Queen [1]
Donative intent was already a requirement of the law before the 2013 amendments.
- 02
Reasons for Judgment, paragraph 7
The split-gifting amendments in subsections 248(30)–(41) of the Income Tax Act were added retroactively to the year announced, but did not create the donative intent requirement.
- 03
Reasons for Judgment, paragraphs 3 and 9
Arguments already repeatedly rejected in similar GLGI appeals may amount to an abuse of the Court’s process.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Appellant provided no new facts or arguments capable of overcoming the established donative intent problem, and his appeal raised no other issue within the Court’s jurisdiction; accordingly, the appeal was struck without leave to amend as an abuse of process.
Obiter and limits
- The judge described the claim that the government’s 2013 changes were the reason the GLGI scheme failed as a conspiracy theory.
- The judge noted that the Respondent’s reliance on the new split-gifting provisions was only in the alternative.
Court disposition
Appeal struck without leave to amend; costs awarded to the Respondent.
- The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years are struck without leave to amend.
- Costs in the appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
Docket: 2022-1109(IT)G
BETWEEN:
JOHN HASSALL,
Appellant,
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING,
Respondent .
Motion determined by Written Submissions
Before: The Honourable Justice David E. Graham
Participants :
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Warwick Walton
JUDGMENT
The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years are struck without leave to amend.
Costs in the appeal are awarded to the Respondent.
Signed this 26th day of May 2026.
“David E. Graham”
Graham J.
Citation: 2026 TCC 98
Date: 20260526
Docket: 2022-1109(IT)G
BETWEEN:
JOHN HASSALL,
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, John Hassall, below.
[ 5 ] Mr. Hassall argues that the government changed the law on donative intent in 2013 with retroactive effect and that, if not for that change, his purported donation to GLGI would have been valid. This is not a new argument.
[ 6 ] Someone has clearly been telling GLGI participants that the only reason the scheme did not work is because the government changed the rules after the fact. I imagine that it is in the interest of whoever has spread that conspiracy theory that people believe it.
[ 7 ] Like all good conspiracy theories, there is an element of truth to it. The government did change the law in respect of what are known as split-gifting arrangements. In particular, subsections 248(30) – (41) were added to the Income Tax Act . As is the case with many amendments, the change was made retroactive to the year that it was announced. However, contrary to the conspiracy theory, the changes did not add a new requirement that a donor must have donative intent. That requirement was already part of the law ( Friedberg v. The Queen [1] ).
[ 8 ] The Respondent relies on these new provisions, but only as a final alternative argument. The Respondent relies first on donative intent, then on the taxpayer never having received the courseware from the trust because the trust did not exist and then on the program being a sham and then on the fair market value of the courseware. It is only if a GLGI taxpayer is successful on all of those issues that the Respondent turns to the new provisions.
[ 9 ] Justice Pizzitelli did not have to address the new provisions in Mariano v. The Queen [2] because he found against the taxpayer on the Respondent’s primary argument – donative intent. That is the argument that I have asked Mr. Hassall to satisfy me that he can overcome. He has provided no facts or arguments that suggest he could.
[ 10 ] Based on all of the foregoing, Mr. Hassall’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
Signed this 26th day of May 2026.
“David E. Graham”
Graham J.
CITATION:
2026 TCC 98
COURT FILE NO.:
2022-1109(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE:
JOHN HASSALL v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING
DATE OF HEARING:
Motion determined by Written Submissions
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
The Honourable Justice David E. Graham
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
May 26, 2026
PARTICIPANTS:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Warwick Walton
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
n/a
Firm:
n/a
For the Respondent:
Marie-Josée Hogue
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
[1] 1991 CarswellNat 669 (FCA).
[2] 2015 TCC 244.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.