Brulé
J.T.C.C.:
—
While
the
appellant
apparently
was
appealing
the
disallowance
of
a
disability
tax
credit
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
(the
“Minister”)
in
his
Notice
of
Appeal
he
forgot
the
1992
and
1993
taxation
years
and
only
is
appealing
based
on
the
1994
taxation
year.
This
position
was
also
said
by
the
appellant’s
daughter
in
her
evidence.
Facts
The
appellant
in
his
appeal
set
out
his
physical
problems
but
placed
more
emphasis
on
how
Revenue
Canada
treated
others
who
the
appellant
said
were
better
off
than
he
claimed.
In
support
of
his
position
the
appellant’s
daughter
referred
to
Exhibit
R-l
presented
to
her
during
examination.
In
this
exhibit
the
attending
doctor
indicated
that
the
appellant
was
able
to
deal
himself
with
the
criteria
set
out
in
paragraph
118.4(1
)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”).
Analysis
It
is
not
up
to
this
Court
to
comment
on
what
others
are
receiving
by
way
of
disability
tax
credits.
This
Court
must
only
deal
with
the
facts
as
presented
by
the
appellant
and
his
witnesses
and
those
of
the
Minister.
Of
importance
is
the
criteria
set
out
in
paragraph
118.4(1)(c)
of
the
Act.
They
read
as
follows:
SECTION
118.4:
Nature
of
impairment.
(1)
For
the
purposes
of
subsection
6(16),
sections
118.2
and
118.3
and
this
subsection,
(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;
...
In
Exhibit
R-l
completed
by
Dr.
A.
Ciok
all
the
criteria
spelled
out
in
paragraph
118.4(1
)(c)
of
the
Act
are
shown
to
be
present,
thus
meaning
that
the
appellant,
when
this
exhibit
was
completed
in
1993,
could
not
qualify
for
a
disability
tax
credit.
There
was,
however,
no
completion
of
Box
No
9
which
asks
if
the
impairment
is
severe
enough
to
restrict
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
Mention
is
made
of
“severe
progressive
osteoarthritis”
and
on
page
1
of
the
exhibit
there
is
mention
that
the
appellant
will
be
restricted
permanently
in
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
No
time
frame
is
mentioned
and
the
medical
doctor
completing
the
exhibit
was
not
present
to
give
evidence.
Such
facts
leave
the
Court
with
no
choice
but
to
dismiss
the
appeal.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content