Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal concerns whether a tuition tax credit under paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act can be calculated based on total tuition paid in a calendar year versus tuition actually owing for that taxation year.

• Maro Ojaide, a self-represented appellant enrolled in a PhD program at the University of Leicester, paid more tuition in 2022 than was owing for that year, with the overpayment credited to 2023 fees.

• The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the appellant's 2022 return, reducing allowable foreign tuition fees from CAD$10,700 to CAD$9,587.30.

• Interpretation of "tuition paid in respect of the year to the university" is the central statutory construction question, analyzed through textual, contextual, and purposive methods.

• Parliamentary drafting history reveals an intentional shift from "paid in the year" to "paid in respect of the year," confirming that credits attach to the year for which tuition is owing, not the year of payment.

• The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal without costs, upholding the Crown's position that the tuition tax credit must be tied to tuition owing for the specific taxation year.

The facts behind the dispute

Maro Ojaide was enrolled as a full-time PhD student at the University of Leicester in Leicester, England, throughout the 2022 calendar year. His doctoral program was structured as a four-year course with total tuition fees amounting to GBP£23,855, payable on a monthly basis. The annual tuition attributable to 2022 was GBP£5,963.75, which converted to CAD$9,587.30 as reflected on the Form TL11D tuition fees certificate. However, during 2022, Mr. Ojaide actually remitted GBP£6,622.36 to the university — equivalent to CAD$10,700 — meaning he paid more in tuition than was owing for that particular year. The university credited the overpayment to tuition owing for 2023.

The tax return and reassessment

When filing his 2022 income tax return, Mr. Ojaide claimed a tuition tax credit based on foreign tuition fees totalling CAD$10,700. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Mr. Ojaide's return, reducing the foreign tuition fees to CAD$9,587.30 and recalculating the tuition tax credit accordingly, on the basis that this was the amount of tuition owing in respect of the 2022 taxation year. Mr. Ojaide appealed this reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada, representing himself at the hearing held on August 21, 2025, in Regina, Saskatchewan.

The statutory provision at issue

The dispute centered on the proper interpretation of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which permits a deduction from tax payable equal to the "appropriate percentage" for the year multiplied by the amount of fees for the individual's "tuition paid in respect of the year to the university." Mr. Ojaide argued that this language allowed him to calculate his credit based on an amount that includes tuition owing for a separate taxation year. The Crown maintained that paragraph 118.5(1)(b) limits the tuition amount to tuition owing for the taxation year.

Textual analysis by the Court

Associate Judge Andrew Miller found the words of paragraph 118.5(1)(b) to be "precise and unequivocal." The Court noted that the preamble to subsection 118.5(1) refers to a "taxation year," and that this term is replaced by "the year" — using the definite article "the" rather than the indefinite article "a" — throughout the remainder of the paragraph, making it clear and unequivocal that "the year," used three times in the provision, means "taxation year" each time, and specifically the same taxation year referenced in the preamble. The same drafting consistency was observed in the French version of the provision, where "année d'imposition" in the preamble is replaced by "l'année." The Court also examined the phrase "in respect of," recognizing it as an expression of the widest possible scope per the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v. Nowegijick, but concluded that connecting tuition payments and "the year" with the expression "in respect of" does not cause "the year" to mean anything other than the "taxation year." The Court further noted that if Parliament had wanted to base the credit on tuition paid in respect of any year, it might have used "a" year, "any" year, or even "paid in the year."

The significance of the legislative evolution

The Court examined earlier iterations of the provision and found that Parliament had originally used the words "paid in the year" (and "au cours de l'année" in French) and later deliberately changed them to "paid in respect of the year" (and "pour l'année"). This amendment, as explained in the Department of Finance Technical Notes, was designed to ensure that the credit would be available in those cases where the tuition for a semester in one year is paid in another year — meaning the credit would be available for the year in respect of which the tuition is paid rather than the year in which it is paid. This legislative history strongly reinforced the Crown's interpretation.

Contextual and purposive considerations

Contextually, the Court observed that surrounding provisions — including the carryforward mechanism in section 118.61, the transfer provisions in sections 118.8 and 118.9, and the reduction for Canada training credits in subsection 118.5(1.2) — use consistent language tying credits to the applicable taxation year. The Court found that the context provided by these provisions was limited and did not add to or subtract from the clear and unequivocal language in paragraph 118.5(1)(b). From a purposive standpoint, the Court noted that the availability of a tuition tax credit is reflective of the policy decision to assist and encourage Canadians to pursue training in order to improve their qualifications for employment. Accepting the appellant's interpretation would allow that purpose to be defeated — an individual enrolled in a four-year program could pay the tuition for the entire program in year one and claim a credit amount calculated according to the entire amount paid in that taxation year, without having to maintain the requirement of continuing the training over the ensuing three years.

The ruling and outcome

Associate Judge Miller concluded that the textual, contextual, and purposive analyses all supported the same interpretation, which is harmonious with the Act as a whole: tuition tax credits for a given taxation year are calculated based on the tuition paid for that same taxation year only. The appeal brought by Mr. Ojaide was dismissed without costs, and the reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue was upheld. Mr. Ojaide's tuition tax credit for the 2022 taxation year was therefore confirmed as being properly calculated based on the tuition owing for that year, an amount totalling CAD$9,587.30. The Crown, represented by counsel Sonia Lee, was the successful party. No specific monetary award was ordered, as the judgment simply dismissed the appeal and confirmed the reassessment. The exact tax difference resulting from the reduction in eligible tuition fees was not specified in the decision.