Citation: 2008TCC40
Date: 20080117
Docket: 2007-732(IT)I
BETWEEN:
M. KEITH MATTINSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Woods J.
[1] The issue in this income tax appeal is whether Keith
Mattinson, the appellant, is entitled to a medical expense tax credit for
monthly fees paid in respect of an emergency response service known as
“Lifeline.”
[2] Although the
appellant’s circumstances are sympathetic, I cannot conclude that the relief
that he seeks is permitted by the relevant legislation.
[3] In reassessments
for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 taxation years, the Minister of National Revenue
disallowed tax credits claimed by the appellant in respect of expenses totaling
$540 for each of the 2001 and 2002 taxation years, and $513 for the 2003
taxation year.
[4] The Lifeline
service was provided to the appellant by Northwood Homecare Limited, a
corporation which is part of a large non-profit organization based in Halifax
providing services to seniors and disabled persons.
[5] The Lifeline is
essentially an alarm system which is designed to enable persons to call for
assistance in their home when they are unable to reach the telephone. A special
telephone is installed in the home, which picks up remote signals from a call
button that is worn by the user. The telephone can be adapted to provide other
uses as well, but the alarm is the essence of the system.
[6] The call button
is worn by the individual while at home, and when it is pressed it triggers a
call through the telephone to a representative from Northwood. The responder
would then telephone the home and attempt to speak to the user through a
speaker system.
[7] In the majority
of cases, users of the system provide names of family or friends for Northwood
to contact if assistance is required, but in some cases no contact is provided
and the Northwood responder calls 911 if assistance is needed. The appellant is
in the latter category.
[8] Some of the
evidence that was led at the hearing related to a system called “Intouch,”
which is the system currently used by Northwood in place of Lifeline. It is very
similar to Lifeline but has some additional features.
[9] In the case of
the appellant, the Lifeline service was prescribed by his doctor about six
years ago after he suffered a devastating heart attack while in his early 50s.
Serious damage to the heart resulted and the appellant continues to be severely
disabled.
[10] The question to
be determined in this appeal is whether the Lifeline service, comprising the
special telephone and related equipment and the monitoring service, qualifies
for the medical expense tax credit in subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax
Act or section 5700 of the Income Tax Regulations.
[11] In general, the
medical expense tax credit is designed to provide some tax relief for special
expenses incurred by persons with illness or disability. The list of qualifying
expenses is long, and is expanded on a regular basis, which appears to indicate
a commitment by the government to be responsive to the medical needs of this
particular group of taxpayers.
[12] The legislation
does not provide tax relief for all medically necessary expenses, however, and
this Court sometimes is required to disallow the tax credit in very sympathetic
circumstances.
[13] The appellant
submits that this type of device is included in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act
or section 5700 of the Regulations, although none of these provisions
specifically refers to an emergency response service of the type used by
the appellant.
[14] The appellant
argues that Parliament intended for this type of device to qualify for the tax
credit because it is functionally similar to other devices and services that
are listed in the Act and the Regulations.
[15] I do not agree
with this submission.
[16] While it is true
that some of the devices and services that are listed in the legislation
provide assistance for the same types of medical problems that the appellant
faces, such as a lack of mobility and heart dysfunction, none of the provisions
can, in my view, be fairly interpreted to apply to a general emergency response
call system. In this regard, I agree with the decision of my colleague, Webb
J., in Urdang v. The Queen, 2007 D.T.C. 1439.
[17] The circumstances
of this appeal are certainly sympathetic and the appellant made forceful
arguments in support of the tax relief he is seeking. However, I cannot
conclude that the relevant provisions can be interpreted to include the
Lifeline expenses incurred by him.
[18] The appeal will
accordingly be dismissed.
[19] Before
concluding, I would comment that the appellant invited the Court to comment on
the need for an amendment to the legislation to include devices such as
Lifeline. This appeal was being pursued not only for the appellant’s own
benefit, he suggested, but also for the benefit of the thousands of users of this
lifesaving device.
[20] I do not think
that it is appropriate for me to comment on matters of tax policy, but I would
note that the appellant’s objective of raising awareness of this issue may have
been accomplished by his having brought this appeal.
Signed at
Toronto, Ontario this 17th
day of January, 2008.
"J. Woods"
CITATION: 2008TCC40
COURT FILE NO.: 2007-732(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: M. KEITH MATTINSON AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Kentville, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: October 25, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Woods
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 17, 2008
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Devon
Peavoy
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant: n/a
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content