A-361-93
 
 
 
 
 
CORAM:STRAYER, J.A.
                        LINDEN, J.A.
                        McDONALD, J.A.
 
 
 
B E T W E E N:
 
 
                                       HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
 
 
                                                                                                                    Appellant
 
 
 
                                                              -and-
 
 
 
 
                                                    VINCENT
LAO
 
 
                                                                                                                 Respondent
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HEARD at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday,
October 23, 1997.
 
 
 
JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at
Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, October 23, 1997.
 
 
 
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                          LINDEN,
J.A.
 
                                                                  
 
                                                                                                                     A-361-93
 
 
 
 
 
CORAM:STRAYER, J.A.
                        LINDEN, J.A.
                        McDONALD, J.A.
 
 
 
B E T W E E N:
 
 
                                       HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
 
 
                                                                                                                    Appellant
 
 
 
                                                              -and-
 
 
 
 
                                                    VINCENT
LAO
 
 
                                                                                                                 Respondent
 
 
 
 
                                        REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
 
 
LINDEN, J.A.:
 
            While Mr. Griffin has made
some cogent arguments about the inconsistencies and injustices of the law in
this area, we are of the view that, unless and until Parliament or the Supreme
Court of Canada revises the law, we are bound to decide these cases in
accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in Phillips.  In
our view, the taxpayer in this case is "better off" because his
"net worth has been increased" by the payment of the so-called
housing allowance of $22,500.  He has, to use the words used in Hoefele,
been "enriched" not "restored".  Hence, the amount is
taxable under Section 6(1)(a).  
 
            In the light of this
conclusion, there is no need to deal with the arguments raised under sections
6(1)(b) and 6(3).
 
            The appeal will be
allowed, the judgment of the Trial Judge will be reversed and the reassessment
of the Minister will be restored.  All reasonable and proper costs will be to
the respondent.
 
 
 
                   "A.M.
Linden"        
                                                                                                     
J.A.
 
 
 
                              Names
of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
 
 
COURT NO:                                                  A-361-93
 
STYLE
OF CAUSE:              HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
 
                                                                        -
and -
 
                                    VINCENT
LAO
                                    
DATE OF HEARING:                                  OCTOBER
23, 1997
 
PLACE OF HEARING:                                TORONTO,
ONTARIO
 
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:  LINDEN, J.A.
 
Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario
on Thursday, October 23, 1997
 
 
APPEARANCES:
                                                                        Mr.
Donald G. Gibson
                                                                        Mr.
Henry A. Gluch
 
                                                                                    For
the Appellant
 
 
                                                                        Mr.
Warren D. Griffin
 
                                                                                    For
the Respondent
 
 
                                                                        
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
 
                                                                        Department
of Justice
                                                                        222
Queen Street 
                                                                        Ottawa,
Ontario
                                                                        K1A
0H8
 
                                                                        George
Thomson
                                                                        Deputy
Attorney General
                                                                        of
Canada
                                                            
                                                                                    For
the Appellant
 
 
                                                                        Giesbrecht,
Griffin & Funk
                                                                        60
College Street
                                                                        Kitchener,
Ontario
                                                                        N2H
5A1
                                                                                                
                                                                                    For
the Respondent
 
                                                                        
 
                                                                        FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
 
 
 
 
                                                                        Court No.:     A-361-93
 
 
 
 
                                                                        Between:
 
 
                                                            HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
 
                                                                                                                    Appellant
 
                                                                        -
and -
 
 
                                                            VINCENT
LAO
                                                            
                                                                                                                 Respondent
 
 
 
 
                                                                        REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT