Lamarre
Proulx
J.T.C.C.:—This
is
an
appeal
pursuant
to
the
informal
procedure
for
the
1989
and
1990
taxation
years.
The
issue
is
whether
the
appellant
is
entitled
to
a
physical
impairment
tax
credit
for
his
son
and
daughter
pursuant
to
section
118.3
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act").
The
appellant
claimed
this
credit
for
his
daughter
Nathalie,
born
on
October
22,
1970,
and
his
son
Stéphane,
born
on
May
27,
1966,
as
his
dependants.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
("the
Minister")
did
not
dispute
that
the
children
were
then
dependants,
but
argued
that
they
were
not
suffering
from
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
118.4(1)
of
the
Act.
Nathalie
and
Stéphane
suffer
from
severe
congenital
haemolytic
anaemia
as
the
result
of
an
erythrocytic
pyruvate-kinase
deficiency.
The
attending
physician
issued
an
initial
certificate
on
March
8,
1989
that
Stéphane
was
suffering
from
a
prolonged
impairment
and,
on
March
23,
1990,
from
a
moderate
impairment.
On
August
24,
1990
he
answered
a
request
for
information
from
the
Disability
Advisory
Services
Division
of
the
Department
of
National
Health
and
Welfare
("the
Department
of
Health")
as
follows:
They
both
have
been
treated
at
our
clinic
since
their
early
years
for
anaemia
which
was
originally
very
severe
and
which
in
both
cases
required
premature
removal
of
the
spleen
at
the
age
of
one
year
approximately
so
they
could
survive
this
problem.
Since
then
Stéphane
and
Nathalie
have
had
to
cope
in
their
daily
lives
with
a
certain
handicap
resulting
from
the
fact
that
the
anaemia
is
still
very
largely
present
but
permits
their
survival
and
some
activity.
If
I
were
to
limit
myself
strictly
to
the
list
of
"handicapping"
activities
mentioned
in
your
letter,
eating
by
oneself,
dressing
by
oneself,
taking
a
bath,
being
mobile,
communicating
or
having
an
inadequate
visual
function,
I
could
not
say
on
the
information
which
I
possess
that
Stéphane
or
Nathalie
Landry
are
both
severely
restricted
in
at
least
one
of
these
activities
of
daily
living.
Nevertheless,
these
two
individuals
suffer
from
a
relatively
debilitating
chronic
illness
which
has
the
effect
of
very
significantly
reducing
their
capacity
for
effort,
whether
it
be
a
more
or
less
prolonged
walk,
climbing
a
stairway
or
any
more
intense
physical
activity
of
a
gymnastic
or
sporting
kind.
The
illness
may
also
create
problems
of
concentration
at
school
or
work.
Since
I
have
known
these
two
patients
they
have
each
at
least
twice
yearly
experienced
"decompensation"
of
their
haemolytic
anaemia
and
been
taken
urgently
to
hospital
with
fever,
lumbar
pains
and
great
weakness.
At
that
time
their
circulating
haemoglobin
rate
which
is
generally
around
70
or
80
grams
a
litre
can
drop
to
extreme
values
such
as
40
or
50
grams
a
litre
(the
normal
rate
is
around
130
to
150).
At
that
time
we
have
to
quickly
administer
transfusions
to
them
and
frequently
treat
an
infection
which
was
responsible
for
the
problem.
In
general,
these
two
young
persons
have
adapted
relatively
well
to
their
illness
though
it
would
be
quite
wrong
to
say
that
they
are
capable
of
leading
normal
lives.
The
limitations
mentioned
above
are
real
and
definitely
constitute
a
chronic
and
ongoing
handicap....
[Translation.]
Dr.
Goulet
of
the
Department
of
Health
testified
for
the
respondent
as
an
expert
witness.
Under
paragragh
118.4(l)(b),
the
Minister
may
obtain
the
advice
of
the
Department
of
Health
as
to
whether
a
person
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment.
He
explained
that
what
was
in
question
was
an
anaemia
resulting
from
the
destruction
of
secondary
red
blood
cells
caused
by
a
lack
of
the
pyruvate-
kinase
enzyme.
In
his
report
on
May
25,
1993
he
said
the
following,
inter
alia,
about
Stéphane:
Conclusions
From
my
investigation,
a
review
of
the
medical
reports
and
questionnaire
and
my
discussions
with
other
physicians
I
have
concluded
that
the
appellant
Stéphane
Landry
does
not
suffer
serious
limitations
on
his
daily
living
as
a
result
of
his
disability.
There
is
no
question
that
Stéphane
is
unable
to
participate
vigorously
in
walks
or
sports.
However,
as
we
are
concerned
here
primarily
with
the
activities
of
daily
living,
his
father’s
testimony
is
most
eloquent.
It
appears
in
the
Revenue
Canada
questionnaire
where
he
stated
that:
-Stéphane’s
state
of
health
has
not
altered;
-he
does
not
need
assistance
to
get
about;
-he
can
walk
and
climb
stairs
without
help;
-he
can
attend
to
his
personal
needs
without
difficulty;
-Stéphane
suffers
fatigue
after
performing
activities
requiring
effort.
[Translation.]
The
appellant
and
his
wife
testified.
In
1989
and
1990
the
appellant’s
two
children
were
23
and
19
years
old.
The
two
children
did
not
testify
as
the
father
wished
to
spare
their
feelings.
The
parents
stated
that
their
children
could
not
engage
in
any
sports,
that
they
are
readily
susceptible
to
viral
illnesses
and
that
they
get
out
of
breath
easily.
Stéphane
is
currently
working
as
a
carrier
for
the
Direction
de
la
protection
de
la
jeunesse
("the
D.P.J.").
He
transports
young
persons
from
one
place
to
another
in
a
vehicle
provided
by
the
D.P.J.
The
carrier’s
work
requires
two
people
and
he
is
occasionally
the
driver.
Nathalie
is
a
nursing
sciences
student
at
a
CEGEP.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
referred
in
particular
to
the
decision
of
Judge
Garon,
dated
October
24,
1991
in
Bérubé
v.
Canada,
[1994]
1
C.T.C.
2655,
in
which
the
person
for
whom
the
deduction
was
requested
under
paragragh
110(l)(e.l)
of
the
Act
was
suffering
from
diabetes
and
could
not
engage
in
sports
for
a
normal
period.
Judge
Garon
dismissed
the
appeal
because
on
the
evidence
and
case
law
the
impairment
did
not
have
the
seriousness
required
by
the
Act.
There
are
a
number
of
decisions
on
the
same
point
and
they
are
all
to
the
same
effect:
the
tax
credit
allowed
by
section
118.3
of
the
Act
is
for
a
person
who
cannot
perform
the
activities
of
daily
living
unaided,
or
if
he
can,
does
so
only
very
slowly
and
with
great
difficulty.
The
judges
have
accepted
the
definition
of
activities
of
daily
living
suggested
by
the
Department
of
Health,
as
activities
fundamental
to
daily
living,
such
as
the
ability
to
take
care
of
one’s
person,
communicate
and
be
mobile.
The
questionnaire
prepared
for
taxpayers
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
also
covers
this
aspect:
(a)
A
MILD
RESTRICTION
is
one
in
which
the
restriction
resulting
from
the
mental
or
physical
impairment
is
such
that,
in
the
absence
of
treatment
or
aids,
the
individual
is
not
prevented
from,
or
is
only
rarely
or
intermittently
restricted
by
the
impairment
in
the
performance
of
the
activities
of
daily
living,
or
where
the
continuous
use
of
aids
(e.g.,
eye
glasses,
hearing
aids,
etc.)
or
medications
restores
full
or
nearly-full
competence
in
the
performance
of
the
activities
of
daily
living.
(b)
A
MODERATE
RESTRICTION
is
one
in
which
the
restriction
resulting
from
the
mental
or
physical
impairment
is
such
that
aids
or
medications
fail
to
produce
sufficient
compensation
of
the
impairment,
with
the
result
that
the
individual
experiences
difficulty
in
the
activities
of
daily
living,
but
is
still
capable
of
independent
living
with
little
reliance
on
other
persons
in
the
performance
of
the
activities
of
daily
living.
(c)
A
MARKED
RESTRICTION
is
one
in
which
aids
or
medications
substantially
fail
to
produce
sufficient
compensation
of
the
impairment
with
the
result
that
the
individual
experiences
great
limitations
in
the
activities
of
daily
living.
Even
if
capable
of
independent
living,
the
individual
can
only
achieve
such
independence
with
considerable
reliance
on
other
persons;
or
it
takes
the
individual
an
inordinate
amount
of
time
to
complete
(with
aids)
the
activities
of
daily
living
in
comparison
with
a
non-
disabled
person
in
the
same
age
group;
or
the
individual,
without
the
use
of
a
prosthesis,
would
rely
on
a
wheelchair
for
mobility,
or
would
be
confined
to
a
bed
for
a
substantial
part
of
the
day.
4.
ACTIVITIES
OF
DAILY
LIVING
relate
to
caring
for
oneself
and
include
the
following
(the
list
is
intended
to
be
illustrative
only).
The
person
may
qualify
if
he
or
she
is
UNABLE:
(a)
to
do
PERSONAL
CARE
activities:
such
as
preparation,
serving
and
eating
of
meals,
dressing,
washing,
bathing,
personal
grooming,
etc.;
(b)
to
be
MOBILE
to
the
extent
that
he
or
she
has
great
difficulty
walking
and
getting
around
in
and
about
the
home,
even
with
the
use
of
hand
rails;
(c)
to
COMMUNICATE
so
as
to
be
understood
by
others
or
completely
unable
to
hear
or
understand
a
conversation
even
with
the
use
of
appropriate
hearing
aids.
Unfamiliarity
with
a
spoken
language
is
not
a
disability;
(d)
because
of
MENTAL
IMPAIRMENT(S),
to
perform
the
management
of
personal
affairs
or
requires
a
significant
degree
of
supervision
or
assistance;
(e)
to
perform
activities
of
daily
living
because
of
OTHER
EQUALLY
DISABLING
IMPAIRMENTS
(e.g.,
complete
loss
of
use
of
the
dominant
arm).
The
children’s
parents
argued
that
their
children
were
manifestly
limited
in
their
activities
of
daily
living
by
a
haemoglobin
rate
which
was
always
half,
and
sometimes
less,
the
normal
haemoglobin
rate,
which
meant
that
their
children
were
always
completely
exhausted
and
could
not
participate
in
any
sports,
and
were
often
ill.
The
parents
wanted
to
know
whether
being
on
the
point
of
death
was
necessary
in
order
to
obtain
the
credit
in
question.
To
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
purpose
of
the
legislation
concerned
and
in
particular
the
meaning
to
be
given
to
the
expression
"activities
of
daily
living",
I
referred
to
the
historical
context
in
which
it
was
adopted.
While
in
statutory
interpretation
reference
is
not
made
to
parliamentary
history
to
determine
what
Parliament
intended,
and
the
courts
simply
look
at
the
legislation,
it
is
nevertheless
possible
to
consult
that
parliamentary
history
to
determine
the
objectives
of
Parliament
and
the
evils
it
sought
to
correct.
In
the
years
at
issue,
namely
1989
and
1990,
subsection
118.3(1)
of
the
Act
read
as
follows:
(1)
Where
(a)
an
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment
that
has
been
certified
as
such
in
prescribed
form
by
a
medical
doctor
or,
where
the
impairment
is
an
impairment
of
sight,
by
a
medical
doctor
or
an
optometrist,
(b)
the
individual
has
filed
for
a
taxation
year
with
the
Minister
the
certificate
described
in
paragraph
(a),
and
(c)
no
amount
in
respect
of
remuneration
for
an
attendant,
or
care
in
a
nursing
home,
by
reason
of
the
mental
or
physical
impairment
of
the
individual
is
included
in
calculating
a
deduction
under
subsection
118.2(1)
for
the
year
by
the
individual
or
by
any
other
person,
for
the
purposes
of
computing
the
tax
payable
under
this
Part
by
the
individual
for
the
year,
there
may
be
deducted
an
amount
determined
by
the
formula
A
x
$3,236
where
A
is
the
appropriate
percentage
for
the
year.
Subsection
118.4(1)
of
the
Act
read
as
follows:
(1)
For
the
purposes
of
sections
63,
118.2
and
118.3,
(a)
a
person
shall
be
considered
to
have
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment
only
if
by
reason
thereof
he
is
markedly
restricted
in
his
activities
of
daily
living
and
the
impairment
has
lasted
or
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
last
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months;
and
(b)
the
Minister
may
obtain
the
advice
of
the
Department
of
National
Health
and
Welfare
as
to
whether
a
person
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment.
The
scope
of
this
provision
is
relatively
new.
Before
1986
the
deduction
was
allowed
to
persons
who
were
totally
blind
or
confined
to
a
bed
or
a
wheelchair
for
long
periods
every
day
as
the
result
of
an
illness,
injury
or
infirmity
and
who
had
not
applied
for
any
deduction
in
respect
of
remuneration
for
an
attendant
or
care
in
a
nursing
home
by
reason
of
their
blindness,
illness,
injury
or
infirmity.
The
pre-1986
deduction
is
discussed
as
follows
in
Canadian
Taxation,
Hansen,
Krishna
and
Rendall,
chapter
10,
titled
"Deductions
for
Personal
Expenditures"
and
written
by
Prof.
Joost
Bloom,
at
page
496:
The
deduction
can
be
claimed
by
anyone
who
was
totally
blind
at
any
time
during
the
year
or
necessarily
confined
to
a
bed
or
wheelchair
for
a
substantial
period
each
day
throughout
the
year....
The
deduction
can
only
be
claimed
if
no
deduction
was
made
for
an
attendant
or
for
care
in
a
nursing
home.
The
Carter
Commission
recommended
abolition
of
this
deduction
on
the
ground
that
it
was
irrational,
but
it
was
retained
for
compassionate
reasons.
According
to
a
footnote
on
page
496,
the
deduction
was
not
logical
because
a
deduction
should
only
be
allowed
to
the
extent
that
an
expense
had
been
incurred.
In
its
1969
White
Paper
(pages
19
and
20),
however,
the
government
decided
to
retain
the
deduction
for
compassionate
reasons.
In
1986
this
deduction
was
altered
so
as
to
extend
its
scope.
The
following
is
stated
in
Budget
Papers
of
May
23,
1985,
at
page
56:
A
deduction
from
taxable
income
—
$2,590
in
1985-
is
allowed
for
a
disabled
person,
currently
defined
as
a
person
who
is
blind
at
any
time
in
the
year
or
confined
to
a
bed
or
wheelchair
for
a
substantial
period
of
time
each
day.
This
definition
does
not
cover
many
severely
disabling
conditions
which
do
not
result
in
confinement
to
a
bed
or
wheelchair.
A
new
definition,
applicable
for
the
1986
and
subsequent
taxation
years,
to
be
administered
by
medical
experts
in
the
Department
of
National
Health
and
Welfare,
has
been
developed
which
will
include
all
severely
disabled
Canadians.
It
will
cover
persons
with
disabling
conditions
such
as
blindness,
severe
cardio-respiratory
failure,
mental
retardation
or
mental
illness,
profound
bilateral
deafness,
and
functional
impairment
of
the
neuro-
or
musculo-
skeletal
systems,
who
also
deserve
tax
assistance.
Those
administering
the
general
medical
definition
will
assess
eligibility
by
evaluating
information
provided
by
the
disabled
person
(or
by
his
or
her
representative).
If
the
effect
of
the
disability
is
to
markedly
restrict
the
person
in
activities
of
daily
living
and
if
the
disability
has
lasted
or
can
be
expected
to
last
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months,
the
person
will
be
issued
a
disability
certificate
and
will
be
eligible
for
the
tax
deduction.
The
new
definition
is
compatible
with
the
goal
of
independent
living
for
disabled
persons
set
out
in
the
Report
of
the
Special
Parliamentary
Committee
on
the
Disabled
and
Handicapped.
The
legislation
adopted
pursuant
to
this
proposed
budgetary
measure
was
amended
in
the
same
year
with
respect
to
the
person
issuing
the
certificate.
It
is
not
the
Department
of
Health
as
initially
proposed
which
is
to
issue
the
certificate,
but
any
physician
holding
a
licence
to
practise.
However,
Parliament
gave
the
Minister
the
right
to
seek
the
advice
of
the
Department
of
Health
as
to
whether
a
person
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment.
This
is
what
we
find
regarding
the
proposed
amendment
to
paragragh
110(l)(e)
at
page
41
of
the
Technical
Notes
to
a
Notice
of
Ways
and
Means
Motion,
dated
October
1986:
Paragraph
110(l)(e)
is
also
amended
for
1986
and
subsequent
years
to
provide
that
the
certification
to
the
effect
that
an
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment
will
be
made
by
a
medical
doctor
licensed
to
practise
under
the
laws
in
Canada
or
of
the
place
where
the
taxpayer
resides
and
not
by
the
Department
of
National
Health
and
Welfare
as
initially
proposed.
However,
that
Department
may
give
advice
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
as
to
whether,
in
a
particular
instance,
an
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment.
Paragraph
6
of
Interpretation
Bulletin
IT-519
restates
the
criteria
described
in
the
Budget
Papers
of
May
23,
1985:
6.
Paragraph
118.4(1)(a)
provides
that
for
the
purposes
of
the
medical
expens'
nd
the
disability
tax
credits
under
sections
118.2
and
118.3,
a
person
is
considered
to
have
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment
only
if,
by
reason
of
such
impairment,
the
person
is
markedly
restricted
in
the
activities
of
daily
living
and
the
impairment
has
lasted
or
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
last
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months.
Such
persons
would
include
those
with
disabling
conditions
such
as
blindness,
severe
cardio-
respiratory
failure,
severe
mental
impairment,
profound
bilateral
deafness
and
functional
impairment
of
the
neuro-
or
musculo-
skeletal
systems.
Additional
information
about
the
meaning
of
"severe"
and
"activities
of
daily
living"
is
provided
in
prescribed
form
T2201,
copies
of
which
are
available
at
District
Taxation
Offices.
The
individual’s
impairment
must
be
certified
on
form
T2201
by
a
medical
doctor
or,
where
the
impairment
is
one
of
sight,
by
a
medical
doctor
or
an
optometrist
(see
3
above).
The
certified
form
should
be
attached
to
the
Individual
Income
Tax
Return
(form
Tl).
Paragraph
118.4(1)(b)
provides
that
the
Department
may
obtain
the
advice
of
the
Department
of
National
Health
and
Welfare
as
to
whether
a
person
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment.
In
1991
Parliament
felt
the
need
to
incorporate
in
the
Act
what
is
meant
and
not
meant
by
the
phrase
"activities
of
daily
living":
118.4(1)
For
the
purposes
of
subsection
6(16),
sections
118.2
and
118.3
and
this
subsection,
(a)
an
impairment
is
prolonged
where
it
has
lasted,
or
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
last,
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months;
(b)
an
individual’s
ability
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living
is
markedly
restricted
only
where
all
or
substantially
all
of
the
time,
even
with
therapy
and
the
use
of
appropriate
devices
and
medication,
the
individual
is
blind
or
is
unable
(or
requires
an
inordinate
amount
of
time)
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living;
(c)
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living
in
relation
to
an
individual
means
(i)
perceiving,
thinking
and
remembering,
(ii)
feeding
and
dressing
oneself,
(iii)
speaking
so
as
to
be
understood,
in
a
quiet
setting,
by
another
person
familiar
with
the
individual,
(iv)
hearing
so
as
to
understand,
in
a
quiet
setting,
another
person
familiar
with
the
individual,
(v)
eliminating
(bowel
or
bladder
functions),
or
(vi)
walking;
and
(d)
for
greater
certainty,
no
other
activity,
including
working,
housekeeping
or
a
social
or
recreational
activity,
shall
be
considered
as
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
The
explanation
of
this
change
is
given
in
the
Budget,
a
document
dated
February
26,
1991,
at
page
144:
As
noted
above,
to
claim
the
disability
tax
credit,
a
person’s
activities
of
daily
living
must
be
markedly
restricted
by
reason
of
a
physical
or
mental
impairment.
Currently,
the
terms
"markedly
restricted"
and
"activities
of
daily
living"
are
not
defined
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
but
rather
are
set
out
in
administrative
guidelines
published
by
Revenue
Canada.
The
current
guidelines
will
be
included
in
the
law
so
as
to
ensure
greater
fairness
and
uniformity
in
their
interpretation
and
application.
The
expression
"markedly
restricted"
will
continue
to
mean
that,
despite
the
use
of
medication,
therapy
or
devices,
the
effect
of
the
impairment
is
to
greatly
restrict
the
performance
of
activities
of
daily
living.
In
addition,
the
expression
"activities
of
daily
living"
will
continue
to
refer
to
basic
functions
such
as
seeing,
hearing,
speaking
and
walking,
but
not
working
or
social,
recreational
and
housekeeping
activities.
The
codification
of
these
definitions
in
the
legislation
does
not
change
the
existing
eligibility
criteria.
As
already
mentioned,
the
provision
in
the
Act
granting
tax
relief
for
a
severe
and
prolonged
physical
impairment
was
enacted
in
1986.
At
that
time
it
was
a
deduction
and
not
a
tax
credit,
but
that
is
not
relevant
for
the
purposes
of
the
point
at
issue.
Before
1986
the
deduction
was
allowed
to
persons
who
were
totally
blind
or
confined
to
a
bed
or
a
wheelchair
for
most
of
the
day.
This
requirement
was
amended
in
1986
to
require
severe
and
prolonged
physical
impairment
certified
by
a
practising
physician.
The
Minister
could
have
recourse
to
the
expertise
of
Department
of
Health
physicians
to
determine
whether
such
an
impairment
actually
existed.
This
new
definition
was
said
to
be
in
keeping
with
the
objective
of
an
independent
life
for
handicapped
persons.
Severely
handicapped
persons
were
entitled
to
tax
relief
without
having
to
remain
confined
to
a
bed
most
of
their
lives.
The
Department
of
Health
gave
the
words
"activities
of
daily
living"
the
meaning
of
the
fundamental
activities
of
daily
life.
In
1991
Parliament
amended
the
Act
to
describe
fundamental
activities:
the
English
version
uses
the
word
"basic",
the
French
the
word
"courant".
Use
in
French
of
the
adjective
"courant"
to
qualify
what
is
in
English
called
"basic"
may
appear
surprising.
In
any
case,
the
description
of
"activités
courantes"
gives
the
word
"courant"
the
meaning
of
"basic".
The
phrase
"activities
of
daily
living",
as
it
stood
in
1989
and
1990,
might
for
non-medical
professionals
have
included
engaging
in
sports,
rapid
walking,
working
and
other
things
which
are
everyday
activities
for
many
people.
However,
a
meaning
must
be
given
to
the
legislation,
which
provides
that
the
Minister
may
consult
the
Department
of
Health
as
to
whether
there
has
been
a
serious
and
prolonged
impairment
in
the
conduct
of
activities
of
daily
living.
The
Department
of
Health
had
defined
them
as
activities
essential
to
daily
living.
As
the
Act
provides
for
a
reference
by
the
Minister
to
the
Department
of
Health
to
determine
the
seriousness
of
the
impairment
and
as
it
appears
that
this
definition
is
consistent
with
the
wording,
I
do
not
see
how
I
could
alter
its
meaning.
The
provision
speaks
in
French
of
"activités
de
vie
quotidienne"
and
not
"activités
de
la
vie
quotidienne".
I
think
that
this
indicates
a
difference
and
that
the
wording
places
the
emphasis
on
activities
necessary
to
everyday
life.
By
using
the
words
"activities
of
daily
living"
the
English
version
is
also
consistent
with
this
meaning.
This
meaning
is
also
consistent
with
the
historical
context
which
extended
the
effect
of
the
legislation
from
the
bedridden
handicapped
to
the
seriously
handicapped
who
were
able
and
willing
to
live
with
a
certain
independence.
Although
one
can
only
have
sympathy
and
admiration
for
the
appellant’s
children,
their
physical
impairment,
which
allows
them
to
perform
the
fundamental
activities
of
daily
living,
does
not
have
the
serious
nature
of
the
physical
impairments
which
are
the
subject
of
the
legislation.
Therefore,
the
Minister
properly
disallowed
the
tax
credit
sought.
The
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content