96-2557(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES R. MORIN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Appeals heard on January 13, 1998, at Sudbury,
Ontario, by
the Honourable Judge D.G.H. Bowman
Appearances
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Natalie
Goulard
JUDGMENT
The
appeals from the assessments made under the Income Tax Act
for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years are allowed and the
assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue
for reconsideration and reassessment to allow the appellant the
disability tax credit provided by section 118.3 of the Income
Tax Act.
The
appellant is entitled to his costs, if any.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 30th day of January 1998
J.T.C.C.
Date: 19980130
Docket: 96-2557(IT)I
BETWEEN:
JAMES R. MORIN,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bowman, J.T.C.C.
[1] These appeals are from assessments
for the 1994 and 1995 taxation years whereby the Minister of
National Revenue denied the appellant's claim for a disability
tax credit under section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act.
[2] The question is whether in those
years he had a severe and prolonged physical impairment, the
effects of which were such that his ability to perform a basic
activity of daily living was markedly restricted.
[3] Commencing in 1988 the appellant,
who is today 58 years old, developed severe pains in his back and
was unable to continue to work. The immediate cause was
degenerative disc problems. He would fall down and had to be
carried out of his place of work, the mine at Inco where he was a
diesel mechanic leader. He was operated on in 1988, without much
apparent success, and the problem reached such intensity that in
1990 he was again operated on and discs were removed. This seems
to have brought about some improvement.
[4] The pain and the lack of further
progress in his medical condition has brought about severe
depression and at one point he suffered a nervous breakdown and
was in a psychiatric ward. In addition to large doses of
painkiller he also turned to alcohol. He has recently stopped
drinking and it is hoped that his battle with alcohol will be
successful. Also, in May of 1997 he separated from his wife and
is living in a trailer.
[5] I mention these matters to
demonstrate the profound effect his disability has had on him. At
the time of trial in January 1998 he appears to have started to
come to terms with some of his problems, possibly to some extent
with the aid of massive amounts of painkillers.
[6] The specific basic activity of
daily living which he says is markedly restricted is walking.
Both he and his wife testified that his ability to walk was about
the same today as it was in 1994 and 1995. He walks with a cane,
but not, he testified, to help him to walk but rather to prevent
him from falling down. He still falls down a couple of times a
week. He testified that in 1994 and 1995, when he was still
living with his wife, his daughter lived three doors down the
street. He could not walk to her house without stopping a couple
of times and sitting down on the street or on a neighbour's front
lawn. He is in constant pain.
[7] Mr. Morin did not strike me as a
person who exaggerated his affliction for the purposes of the
court hearing. On the contrary I suspect that it is worse than he
makes out. Having heard more disability tax credit cases than I
care to count, I have observed that frequently appellants, far
from exaggerating their disabilities, seek to downplay the effect
because they feel a certain reluctance to display the extent to
which they can no longer do the things they used to be able to
do. Mr. Morin appears to me to be such a person. The court
sat in a hotel. Mrs. Morin, who drove the appellant to the
hearing, testified that in coming to the courtroom from the
parking lot Mr. Morin had to stop and rest about one-half way
between the two in the coffee shop. He cannot walk more than
about 25 to 30 feet without resting. It is true, he can walk, but
his progress is slow and painful. I am satisfied that he has a
severe and prolonged disability, the effects of which markedly
restrict his ability to perform a basic activity of daily living,
viz. walking. In reaching this conclusion, I am following
the approach which I followed in Radage v. The Queen, 96
DTC 1615, Noseworthy v. The Queen, 95-1862(IT)I, January
10, 1996; Lawlor v. The Queen, 95-1585(IT)I, January 10,
1996; Hillier v. The Queen, 95-3097(IT)I, January 11, 1996
and Lamothe v. The Queen, 95-2868(IT)I and 95-3949(IT)I,
April 18, 1996.
[8] The appeals are allowed and the
assessments are referred back to the Minister of National Revenue
for reconsideration and reassessment to allow the appellant the
disability tax credit provided by section 118.3 of the Income
Tax Act.
[9] The appellant is entitled to his
costs, if any.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, on this 30th day of January
1998.
J.T.C.C.
COURT FILE
NO.:
96-2557(IT)I
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
James R. Morin and
Her Majesty The Queen
PLACE OF
HEARING:
Sudbury, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING:
January 13, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: D.G.H. Bowman
DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
January 30, 1998
APPEARANCES:
For the
Appellant:
The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: Natalie
Goulard
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
--
Firm:
--
For the
Respondent:
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada