Beaubier,
T.C.C.J.:—This
matter
was
heard
in
Edmonton,
Alberta,
on
June
25,
1992.
Mr.
MacDonald
was
the
only
witness.
He
has
appealed
a
reassessment
concerning
his
1986
taxation
year.
In
1986
Mr.
MacDonald
deducted
the
sum
of
$2,880
from
his
income
on
account
of
payments
he
made
pursuant
to
a
Paternity
Agreement.
The
payments
were
not
made
to
his
spouse
or
former
spouse,
rather,
they
were
made
as
child
maintenance
payments
on
account
of
children
born
through
a
"common
law
relationship”
as
Mr.
MacDonald
described
it.
The
payments
in
question
are
made
through
Alberta
Social
Services
in
conjunction
with
a
family
maintenance
and
court
services
branch
paternity
agreement.
The
former
paragraph
60(c.1),
applicable
to
the
case
at
bar,
applied
to
maintenance
payments
made
to
individuals
within
a
prescribed
class
of
persons
described
in
the
laws
of
a
province
and/or
children
of
any
such
individual
in
the
latter's
custody.
Pursuant
to
section
6502
of
the
Regulations,
as
it
was
applicable
at
that
time,
the
only
prescribed
class
of
persons
to
which
paragraph
60(c.1)
applied
were
those
individuals
who
had
obtained
an
order
for
support
under
Ontario
law
and
who,
at
the
time
the
application
for
the
order
was
made,
came
within
the
definition
of
“common-law
spouse"
set
out
in
subclause
14(b)(i)
of
the
Family
Law
Reform
Act,
R.S.O.
1980,
c.
152.
Regulation
6502
specifically
set
out
that
only
payments
made
to
such
individuals
pursuant
to
an
Ontario
court
order
could
be
deducted
by
the
taxpayer
making
the
support
payments.
The
province
of
residence
of
a
taxpayer
making
support
payments
to
a
former
common-law
spouse
was
not
relevant.
Therefore,
where
the
taxpayer
made
support
payments
to
a
former
common-law
spouse
who
came
within
the
definition
set
out
in
Ontario's
Family
Law
Reform
Act,
supra,
but
pursuant
to
an
order
made
in
a
province
other
than
Ontario,
such
payments
were
not
deductible
under
former
paragraph
60(c.1).
The
former
paragraph
60(c.1)
required
that,
for
deductibility
to
exist
in
favour
of
the
appellant,
the
amount
paid
must
be".
.
.
pursuant
to
an
order
made
in
accordance
with
the
laws
of
a
province
by
a
competent
tribunal
.
.
.
."
The
pleadings,
the
evidence,
and
Exhibit
R-2,
the
paternity
agreement
pursuant
to
which
the
payments
were
made,
indicate
that
in
19896
[sic]
Mr.
MacDonald's
payments
were
made
pursuant
to
a
written
agreement
to
the
Director
of
Maintenance
and
Recovery,
Department
of
Social
Services
and
Community
Health
of
Alberta.
The
former
paragraph
60(c.1)
also
limited
the
right
of
deductibility
to
a
person
who
was:
.
.
.
living
apart
from
the
recipient
who
was
an
individual
within
a
prescribed
class
of
person
described
in
the
law
of
a
province.
[Emphasis
added.]
Regulation
6502
as
applicable
to
the
1986
taxation
year
then
limited
the
"prescribed
class
of
persons"
to
those
who
were
parties”.
.
.
to
proceedings
giving
rise
to
an
order
made
in
accordance
with
the
laws
of
the
Province
of
Ontario.”
In
the
present
case,
the
appellant
falls
squarely
within
the
application
of
the
former
paragraph
60(c.1)
and
section
6502
of
the
Regulations
and
therefore
cannot
claim
a
deduction
for
maintenance
payments
made
pursuant
to
a
paternity
agreement.
In
these
circumstances,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content