Taylor
J.T.C.C.:—
This
is
an
appeal
under
the
informal
procedure
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario
on
November
4,
1994,
from
an
assessment
of
income
tax
in
which
the
respondent
disallowed
a
claim
for
the
non-
refundable
disability
tax
credit
for
the
years
1991
and
1992
in
the
amounts
of
$700.06
and
$719.61
respectively.
The
notice
of
appeal
provides
the
following
information
regarding
the
claim:
I
was
totally
unable
to
perform
a
basic
activity
day-to-day
self-care
living
for
over
a
period
of
12
months
(please
contact
my
doctors
Dr.
Rebane
and
Dr.
Anderson).
I
understand
a
“heart
attack”
may
not
reasonably
be
expected
to
last
more
than
12
months
according
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
I
had
a
heart
attack
in
February
1991.
I
suffered
greatly
with
chest
pain,
fluid
build
up
in
the
lungs,
weakness,
and
lack
of
breath
and
rest.
I
was
scared
to
be
left
alone.
I
had
triple
bypass
and
valve
implant
surgery
in
October
1991.
After
I
had
my
surgery
I
had
a
relapse
and
was
hospitalized
again
due
to
complications.
Later
I
still
had
fluid
in
the
lungs
again.
I
needed
to
take
additional
medication
which
caused
gout
in
my
elbows,
legs,
and
or
feet
for
most
of
1992.
I
had
to
go
daily
for
blood
readings
to
regulate
my
medication,
from
which
the
imbalance
left
me
feeling
in
poor
health.
I
was
very
weak
and
my
recovery
was
slow.
My
wife
had
to
help
me
dress,
cook
for
me
and
look
after
the
household
chores
and
finances.
My
family
also
helped
to
look
after
outside
chores
and
drive
me
to
the
doctors,
hospital
and
for
tests
as
I
was
unable
to
drive
and
my
wife
does
not
drive.
I
do
not
feel
that
I
am
being
treated
fairly
as
my
disability
lasted
more
than
24
months
and
was
definitely
the
worst
experience
of
my
life.
The
respondent
relied
on
section
118.4
and
subsection
118.3(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
“Act”)
as
amended
for
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years.
And
further
the
respondent
submitted
that
in
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years,
the
appellant
did
not
have
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment
within
the
meaning
provided
by
section
118.4
of
the
Act
and
that
therefore
the
appellant
is
not
entitled
to
claim
non-refundable
tax
credits
in
respect
of
disability
amounts
as
provided
by
subsection
118.3(1)
of
the
Act.
The
appellant
testified
regarding
his
condition,
which
included
hospitalization
twice
in
the
ear
1991—first
as
treatment
for
a
heart
condition
and
later
for
a
triple
bypass
and
valve
implant.
He
had
complications,
some
of
which
were
related
to
medication
he
was
taking
after
the
operation,
and
his
recovery
to
the
present
stage
of
mobility
and
routine
did
take
quite
some
time.
The
respondent
presented
as
an
expert
witness
Dr.
Eleanor
Sutherland
who
reviewed
the
medical
information
already
filed
by
the
appellant,
and
prepared
her
own
report
regarding
his
health
status
and
condition.
Her
conclusions
were:
There
is
no
medical
evidence
on
file
to
indicate
that
he
was
continuously
markedly
restricted
in
his
basic
activities
of
daily
living
throughout
the
years
involved.
Therefore,
on
the
basis
of
the
current
medical
information
it
would
appear
to
the
Medical
Advisory
Group
that
Frank
Ciufo
did
not
meet
the
legislative
criteria
for
the
disability
tax
credit
in
the
1991
and
1992
taxation
years.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
reviewed
the
testimony
and
evidence,
and
asserted
that
while
the
appellant
undoubtedly
suffered
considerably,
the
conditions
in
1991
of
being
ill
(heart
condition
and
surgery)
and
in
1992
(recovering
from
surgery)
were
not
such
as
to
qualify
for
the
credits
claimed.
Analysis
Dr.
Sutherland’s
report
and
opinion
were
based
on
a
straight
review
of
he
medical
evidence
and
comparisons
with
the
general
medical
history
and
knowledge
of
similar
situations.
It
might
be
argued
that
Dr.
Sutherland
should
have
personally
seen
and
examined
the
appellant,
but
I
am
not
sure
that
would
have
added
greatly
to
her
information
as
a
medical
practitioner.
The
appellant
is
now
in
1994
in
fairly
good
health,
but
the
relevant
years
are
1991
and
1992.
A
major
factor
in
the
testimony
of
Dr.
Sutherland,
in
my
mind,
was
the
understandable
fear
of
movement
or
activity
which
recovering
patients
have
after
such
serious
surgery.
It
is
not
for
me
to
question
the
wisdom
of
the
appellant
remaining
as
quiet
as
he
did—but
I
am
not
convinced
that
such
a
state
of
affairs
-
recovering
from
serious
surgery
under
competent
medical
care
—
is
a
condition
which
fits
within
the
terms
of
the
relevant
sections
of
the
Act
or
the
Regulations.
It
is
certainly
my
view
that
a
generous
rather
than
a
restricted
view
should
be
taken
of
these
provisions
in
the
Act,
and
I
try
to
do
so.
But
the
circumstances
in
this
appeal
as
I
understand
them
do
not
qualify
the
individual
for
the
year
1991.
For
the
year
1991,
I
am
quite
convinced
that
while
he
was
apparently
ill
and
restricted
in
his
activity,
that
alone
does
not
provide
the
necessary
circumstances
for
qualification
either.
The
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content