Rip,
TCJ:—This
is
an
appeal
from
an
income
tax
assessment
for
1979
in
which
the
respondent
disallowed
moving
expenses
claimed
by
the
appellant.
Until
some
time
in
June
1979
the
appellant
was
employed
as
a
sales
representative
for
Speedway
Express
Ltd
(“Speedway”),
a
long-distance
trucking
company
carrying
on
business
in
Ontario,
the
Maritimes
and
points
in
between.
The
appellant’s
responsibilities
included
investigating
customer’s
claims,
inspections
and
visiting
customers
for
sales.
The
appellant
worked
west
of
Toronto
in
an
area
bounded
by
Yonge
Street
in
Toronto
in
the
east
and
to
the
west
by
Georgetown,
and
included
the
towns
or
cities
of
Acton,
Brampton,
Bramalea,
Mississauga,
Oakville
and
Hamilton.
In
June
of
1979
the
appellant
left
the
employ
of
Speedway
for
a
similar
position
with
Champlain
Sept-Iles
Express
Interprovincial
Inc.
(“Champlain”),
a
company
carrying
on
long-distance
trucking
in
Quebec
and
Ontario.
The
appellant
worked
in
the
area
south
of
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
between
Highway
10
on
the
east
and
Niagara
Falls
on
the
west,
and
included
Oakville,
parts
of
Mississauga,
Burlington,
Hamilton,
Stoney
Creek,
Wellington,
St
Catharines
and
Thorold.
Until
July
27,
1979
the
appellant
lived
on
Regan
Crescent
in
Georgetown,
Ontario
when,
in
order
to
be
closer
to
the
area
in
which
he
would
be
working
for
Champlain,
he
moved
to
Oakville;
he
incurred
moving
expenses
which
he
sought
to
deduct
in
accordance
with
subsection
62(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appellant
testified
that
in
his
view
his
“new
work
location”,
as
that
term
is
used
in
subsection
62(1),
was
the
intersection
of
Highway
25
and
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
since
this
was
where
he
“started
in
the
morning
to
where
I
had
to
go”.
He
testified
there
was
no
need
for
him
to
go
to
the
Champlain
truck
terminal
in
Mississauga
on
any
regular
basis
since
there
was
no
sales
office
there
and
he
received
his
instructions
on
which
customers
to
visit
by
telephone
from
the
terminal
and
from
Champlain’s
head
office
in
Montreal.
The
appellant’s
supervisor
worked
in
Montreal.
The
appellant
would
attend
at
the
Mississauga
terminal
only
about
once
a
week
and
in
the
latter
part
of
1979
also
visited
the
terminal
to
collect
his
salary.
At
trial
the
appellant
stated
that
on
at
least
three
occasions
he
“clocked”
the
mileage
between
his
former
residence
and
the
intersection
of
Highway
25
and
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
at
29.5
miles.
The
route
chosen
by
the
appellant
to
determine
the
mileage
from
his
former
home
to
that
intersection
was
not
a
straight
road:
he
would
first
travel
from
his
home
to
Guelph
Street
in
Georgetown
then
to
Main
Street
and
then
travel
south
along
Main
Street
(also
known
as
Concession
Road
8)
to
No
10
Sideroad,
then
west
along
No
10
Sideroad
to
Highway
25
and
then
along
Highway
25
south
to
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way.
The
distance
between
his
new
residence
in
Oakville
and
the
intersection
of
Highway
25
and
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
was
two
miles,
he
said.
With
his
1979
tax
return
the
appellant
filed
a
claim
for
moving
expenses
form
which
indicated
the
distance
from
his
former
residence
to
his
new
work
location
was
38
miles,
and
the
distance
from
his
new
residence
to
his
new
work
location
was
12
miles,
a
difference
of
26
miles.
Under
cross-examination
the
appellant
could
not
recall
what
point
of
reference
he
used
as
his
new
work
location
in
making
these
calculations;
he
said
he
thought
it
may
be
the
Champlain
Terminal
in
Mississauga
but
he
was
not
sure.
He
also
stated
that
if
he
used
the
terminal
as
his
new
work
location,
then
the
12
miles
he
stated
as
the
distance
between
his
new
home
and
the
new
work
location
was
in
error,
since
the
distance
between
these
two
points
was
much
less
than
12
miles.
And
he
also
testified
under
cross-
examination
that
if
the
terminal
was
used
as
the
new
work
location
the
difference
in
distance
between
his
old
residence
and
the
terminal
and
his
new
residence
and
the
terminal
would
be
less
than
25
miles.
“Location”
is
defined
as
follows:
.
.
.
a
tract
of
land
marked
out
or
surveyed
.
.
.
6.
Place
of
settlement
or
residence.
Shorter
Oxford
English
Dictionary
.
.
.
a
tract
of
land
designated
for
a
purpose.
Webster’s
New
Collegiate
Dictionary
of
the
English
language.
A
work
location,
therefore,
is
a
place
or
area
where
one
works.
A
work
location
is
not
in
my
view
a
point
where
two
roads
intersect;
it
is
the
entire
area
within
which
a
person
works
and
in
this
case
includes
the
area
south
of
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
between
Highway
10
on
the
east
and
Niagara
Falls
on
the
west,
including
Oakville,
the
parts
of
Mississauga
where
the
appellant
works,
Burlington,
Hamilton,
Stoney
Creek,
Welland,
St
Catharines
and
Thorold.
In
making
a
calculation
of
distance
for
the
purpose
of
subsection
62(1)
between
a
taxpayer’s
new
residence
and
new
work
location
and
his
old
residence
and
his
new
work
location,
the
distance
between
the
closest
points
in
the
new
work
location
to
the
new
residence
and
to
the
old
residence
respectively
should
be
used,
that
is,
the
distance
is
the
measure
from
either
residence
to
the
closest
point
of
the
new
work
location.
The
distances
between
a
new
work
location
and
the
new
and
old
residences,
for
the
purpose
of
subsectidn
62(1),
are
precise
measurements;
the
difference
between
the
two
shall
not
be
less
than
25
miles.
The
measurement
of
distance
for
the
purposes
of
subsection
62(1)
is
an
objective
determination.
It
is
not
determined
subjectively
as,
for
example,
in
subparagraph
6(6)(a)(i)
which
permits
a
taxpayer
to
deduct
certain
expenses
where
by
reason
of
distance
a
taxpayer
working
at
a
special
work
site
could
not
reasonably
be
expected
to
return
daily
to
his
ordinary
place
of
residence.
The
French
version
of
subsection
62(1)
uses
the
word
“distance”;
the
English
version
of
subsection
62(1)
uses
the
word
“distance”
as
well.
But
while
the
English
version
of
subparagraph
6(6)(a)(i)
uses
the
word
“distance”,
the
French
version
in
subparagraph
6(6)(a)(i)
uses
the
word
“éloignement”.
“Eloignement”
is
subject
to
wider
interpretation
than
“distance”;
it
includes
the
English
word
“remoteness”,
it
also
can
mean
“being
away
from”,
“absence”,
“separation”
(see
Petit
Robert).
By
using
“éloignement”
the
legislator
meant
more
than
the
strict
measurement
between
two
points,
which
is
what
“distance”
is.
It
is
conceivable
for
the
purposes
of
subparagraph
6(6)(a)(i)
that
a
distance
of
20
miles
between
a
taxpayer’s
residence
and
the
work
site
to
which
he
must
report
may
be
an
unreasonable
distance
to
travel
on
a
daily
basis
in
one
case
but
not
unreasonable
in
another
case.
Each
case
will
depend
on
its
own
facts.
In
subsection
62(1)
there
is
no
subjective
test
and
the
distances
between
the
old
and
the
new
residences
and
the
new
work
location
must
be
the
shortest
distance
between
the
closest
point
of
one
to
the
other
in
a
straight
line:
vide
Lake
v
Butler
(1855),
24
Law
J
Rep
(n
s)
273,
Jewell
and
Another
v
Stead
(1856)
25
Law
J
Rep
(n
s)
294.
This
distance
is
a
straight
measurement,
not
by
road
or
other
method
of
transportation
between
the
two
points
but
“as
the
crow
flies”.
The
appellant
agreed
that
“as
the
crow
flies”
his
new
residence
was
not
at
least
25
miles
closer
to
his
new
work
location
(even
if
it
is
the
intersection
of
the
Queen
Elizabeth
Way
and
Highway
25).
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content