Sweetman v. The Queen (April 23, 2021 – 2021 TCC 32, Graham J.).
Précis: Mr. Sweetman was part of the Global Learning Gifting Initiative (“GLGI”). He chose not to be part of the test case litigation: Mariano v. The Queen and pursued his appeal as a self-represented litigant. He took a motion to have his appeal held in abeyance pending the Minister correcting what Mr. Sweetman alleged were a number of “failures” on the Minister’s part. Graham J. would have no part of Mr. Sweetman’s line of arguments and dismissed the motion with costs payable in the cause.
Decision: Graham J. had to deal with an oddball variety of complaints. His decision on just one of the points is illustrative of the tenor of Mr. Sweetman’s arguments:
Conduct of the Minister
 Mr. Sweetman also raises a number of other alleged failures involving the conduct of the Minister at the audit or objection stage. These are not proper issues for this Court.
 Mr. Sweetman specifically refers to an alleged failure to “apply the tax legislation consistently in relation to GLGI taxpayers across the country.” Mr. Sweetman does not explain why he believes that the legislation has not been applied consistently. Based on materials that he has previously filed, I suspect that he is referring to the conduct described by Justice Phelan of the Federal Court in Ficek v. The Attorney General of Canada. If that is the case, then, as set out above, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the Minister’s conduct.
 If Mr. Sweetman’s alleged inconsistent application of the Act refers to the fact that he is no longer able to take advantage of a time-limited settlement offer that the Minister made to other taxpayers, then, again, the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with those matters. Similarly, the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with any differential treatment of other taxpayers even if those taxpayers are in identical circumstances to Mr. Sweetman.
The GLGI began activity in 2004 and the Mariano decision was decided by the Tax Court in 2015 denying the tax benefits sought by that very large class of litigants. It’s somewhat sad to see a participant of GLGI still pursuing an appeal 6 years after Mariano was decided against the original group of participants.