BETWEEN:
ORDIA KELLY,
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 herself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Benjamin Chamberland
JUDGMENT
The appeals of the reassessments of the Appellant’s 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 taxation years are struck without leave to amend.
Costs in the appeals are awarded to the Respondent.
Signed this 18th day of June 2026.
“David E. Graham”
Graham J.
BETWEEN:
ORDIA KELLY,
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, Ordia Kelly below.
A. Donative Intent
[5] Ms. Kelly’s submissions do not raise any new facts or arguments that could overcome the donative intent issue. She simply states that she thought the program was helping people in the third world. She offers no explanation of how she expects to show that she was not going to profit from her purported donations.
[6] 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
[7] Ms. Kelly raises a number of other arguments. None of them is new. I will address them briefly.
Ability to Pay
[8] Ms. Kelly 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.
[9] The question the Court has to decide is whether Ms. Kelly 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.
Due Diligence
[10] Ms. Kelly submits she thought that GLGI was a reputable charitable organization, that the CRA accepted the charity for registration and that she did not think she was doing anything wrong. In other words, she says she was duly diligent.
[11] Ms. Kelly 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.
Scammed
[12] Like many of the GLGI taxpayers who have appeared before the Court, Ms. Kelly asserts that she was scammed by the operators of GLGI. While that is likely true, it does not change the fact that Ms. Kelly had no donative intent.
C. Universal Donation Program
[13] In my Order, I stated that it appeared that Ms. Kelly may also have been involved in a different charitable donation scheme called the Universal Donation Program. I pointed out that her notice of appeal made no reference to that scheme. I advised her that, unless she told me otherwise, I would assume that that program was not in issue in her appeal. Ms. Kelly’s submissions did not refer to the Universal Donation Program. As a result, I have assumed it is not something she wants to dispute.
D. Conclusion
[14] Based on all of the foregoing, Ms. Kelly’s appeal is struck without leave to amend. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
Signed this 18th day of June 2026.
“David E. Graham”
Graham J.
2026 TCC 99
COURT FILE NO.:
2021-3156(IT)G
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ORDIA KELLY 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:
June 18, 2026
PARTICIPANTS:
For the Appellant:
The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent:
Benjamin Chamberland
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