Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• The Minister of National Revenue reassessed Mr. Vibert's 2022 taxable income to include $6,660.60 in distributions reported on a T4-RCA slip issued by BMO Trust Company.

• Amounts received under a Retirement Compensation Arrangement are taxable under paragraph 56(1)(x) of the Income Tax Act, treated similarly to pension and retirement benefits.

• Mr. Vibert bore the burden of proving the reassessment was incorrect but presented only vague and incomplete evidence at trial.

• No documentary proof was tendered to support the Appellant's claim that the payments stemmed from a legal settlement rather than an RCA.

• Under the surrogatum (substitution) principle, even if the payments were from a settlement for lost pension income, they would still be taxable under paragraph 56(1)(a).

• The Tax Court of Canada lacks jurisdiction to set aside a valid reassessment based on fairness concerns or the conduct of the CRA during audit or objection stages.

Background and the parties involved

Lance Vibert, a self-represented former GO Transit employee, appealed a reassessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue for the 2022 taxation year. The case was heard on November 6, 2025, at Oakville, Ontario, before the Honourable Justice Joanna Hill of the Tax Court of Canada. The respondent, His Majesty the King, was represented by counsel Roisin Boyle.

The reassessment and the T4-RCA slip

The Canada Revenue Agency received a T4-RCA, Statement of Distributions from a Retirement Compensation Arrangement, issued to Mr. Vibert by BMO Trust Company for the 2022 taxation year. The slip listed distributions of $6,660.60 and $666.12 deducted for income tax. Based on this slip, the Minister reassessed Mr. Vibert to include those amounts in the calculation of his taxable income, noting the change was to include income from GO Transit from a T4-RCA.

Mr. Vibert's objection and appeal

Mr. Vibert objected to the reassessment on several grounds: he claimed he (a) did not receive the T4-RCA slip, (b) did not enter into an RCA with GO Transit, and (c) had not received income from GO Transit since he was last employed there in 2006. He further contended that any amounts received were from a legal settlement, not an RCA. In response to his objection, CRA Appeals informed him that if the T4-RCA slip was incorrect, he would need to file a copy of a deleted or amended slip from the issuer. Mr. Vibert did not obtain a deleted or amended slip, and the Minister confirmed the reassessment. He then repeated the same arguments in his appeal to the Tax Court.

The GO Transit Top-Up Program

Although Mr. Vibert argued that the payments were from a legal settlement related to a dispute between GO Transit management employees and the provincial government regarding a change in their pension from the Ontario Pension Board to the Ontario Municipal Retirement Savings (OMERS) plan, he did not have any documents to support the existence of this settlement or any payments in this regard. Instead, he submitted a package of documents for a GO Transit Top-Up Program. By letter dated August 24, 2021, Metrolinx provided Mr. Vibert with a Member Statement indicating his benefit entitlement under the Go Transit Top-Up Program. The Member Statement outlined that the top-up benefit entitlement was calculated based on the difference between the pension Mr. Vibert would have received if his years of service had not been split between a "Prior Public Service Pension Plan" and the OMERS plan. According to the calculation, Mr. Vibert was entitled to a monthly top-up of $540.25 or $6,483.03 annually. The top-up commencement date was December 1, 2020, and the amount would increase each year by a percentage equal to that provided under the OMERS plan. Mr. Vibert signed a certification confirming his agreement with the top-up amount, less any applicable taxes, and provided his banking information to have the monthly benefit paid by direct deposit.

The statutory framework and evidentiary analysis

The Minister reassessed Mr. Vibert on the basis that amounts received under an RCA are taxable under paragraph 56(1)(x) of the Income Tax Act. That provision taxes RCA payments in the same way as pension and retirement benefits. The definition of a retirement compensation arrangement in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act includes plans under which contributions are made by a taxpayer's employer in connection with benefits that may be received after the taxpayer's retirement, with those contributions made to a custodian who manages the plan and pays the benefits. The Court noted that it is established law that Mr. Vibert has the burden to establish that the Minister's reassessment is incorrect. He was unable to do so because his evidence was vague and incomplete. Notably, Mr. Vibert did not deny that he received the amount listed on the T4-RCA. He testified that he receives a monthly deposit into his bank account from BMO Trust Company and presumes that it might add up to the amount listed on the tax slip. However, he did not try to trace the 2022 bank deposits in preparation for his appeal. Mr. Vibert argued that "whether it is called a Top-Up Program, an RCA, a straight pension, this was a legal settlement." However, the GO Transit Top-Up Program documents do not refer to a court dispute or legal settlement. While the Court acknowledged his argument that the Top-Up Program was intended to bridge the gap, to "serve as sort of an equalization" between the Ontario Pension Board and the OMERS plan has some merit, there was still insufficient evidence to displace the basis for the Minister's reassessment. More was needed to recharacterize the payments as a legal settlement.

Respondent's evidence and the surrogatum principle

The Respondent's witness, Bob Mathew, the BMO Senior Trust Officer and Director of Trust Services who sent the T4-RCA and a summary certification regarding all the participants to the CRA, identified the tax slip and confirmed that it was issued to Mr. Vibert for the 2022 taxation year. He further stated that GO Transit set up the RCA with BMO Trust Company as the trustee and custodian and that they administered the trust according to the terms of the agreement between GO Transit and its employees. Unfortunately, Mr. Mathew was unable to provide information regarding that agreement because he did not bring a copy to the hearing, and he otherwise was not familiar with the terms. The Court observed that while the Respondent was not required to call detailed, extensive evidence regarding the RCA agreement, some additional background information would have assisted the Court and Mr. Vibert. The Court further noted that it was open to the Respondent to argue that even if the payments were not made under an RCA, the amounts were still taxable. Mr. Vibert's testimony was that the payments were from a legal settlement intended to compensate him for lost pension income arising from the move from one pension plan to another. Under the surrogatum (substitution) principle, the payments would have replaced pension benefits and would have been taxable under paragraph 56(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in any event.

Ruling and outcome

Mr. Vibert took issue with the conduct of the CRA with respect to a number of matters including the timing of the reassessment compared to the date the CRA received the T4-RCA slip and his inability to obtain information from the CRA. While the Court appreciated Mr. Vibert's frustrations, it emphasized that its authority is limited to determining whether the 2022 reassessment is correct in law, and that the Court cannot set aside a valid reassessment based on issues of fairness or because of actions by the CRA at audit, objection, or in collecting an outstanding debt. The appeal was dismissed, without costs, on December 12, 2025. The Crown was the successful party, with the Minister's reassessment including $6,660.60 in RCA distributions in Mr. Vibert's taxable income for the 2022 taxation year upheld.