Hugessen
J
A.:
In
dismissing
the
taxpayer’s
appeal
against
the
Minister’s
disallowance
of
her
claim
to
a
disability
credit
under
subsections
118.3(1)
and
118.4(1)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
the
1992
taxation
year
the
learned
Tax
Court
judge
said:
However,
to
succeed,
Mrs.
Thomas
must
satisfy
the
very
restrictive
conditions
of
the
Act,
one
of
these
being
that
all
or
substantially
all
of
the
time
in
1992,
even
with
therapy
and
the
use
of
appropriate
devices
and
medication,
she
must
have
been
unable,
or
must
have
required
an
inordinate
amount
of
time,
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
The
only
activities
contemplated
by
the
Act
with
which
Mrs.
Thomas
has
some
difficulty
were
dressing
herself,
speaking,
walking,
perceiving,
thinking
and
remembering.
There
is
some
evidence
that
at
particular
times,
Mrs.
Thomas
had
difficulty
performing
the
first
three
activities.
However,
in
1992
she
did
not
have
to
stay
in
bed
for
a
24-hour
period
because
of
a
very
bad
reaction
to
offending
chemicals.
When
exposed
to
them,
she
reacted
with
different
symptoms
varying
in
degree
of
seriousness.
She
would
often
feel
some
fatigue,
as
a
result
at
[sic]
which
she
required
a
longer
time
than
normal
to
perform
a
given
activity.
I
have
not
been
convinced
by
Mrs.
Thomas’s
evidence
that
she
was
all
or
substantially
all
of
the
time
unable
to
perform
these
activities
or
that
she
required
an
inordinate
amount
of
time
to
do
so.
This
is
supported
also
by
the
fact
that
in
her
doctor's
certificate
no
mention
is
made
of
difficulty
with
these
three
activities.
[Emphasis
added.]
With
respect,
it
appears
clear
to
us
that
in
making
this
last
statement
the
learned
judge
committed
a
manifest
error.
One
of
the
medical
certificates
produced
answers
“No”
to
the
question
whether
the
patient
can
walk
normally.
The
other
specifies
that
she
requires
“a
very
prolonged
time”
to
dress
herself.
The
taxpayer
herself,
whom
the
judge
did
not
disbelieve,
said
that
she
took
twenty
to
twenty-five
minutes
to
walk
a
distance
which
should
normally
take
seven
minutes.
While
the
judge
was
not,
of
course,
obliged
to
accept
any
of
these
statements
at
their
face
value,
he
was
not
entitled
to
overlook
them,
as
he
appears
to
have
done.
The
application
for
judicial
review
will
be
allowed,
the
decision
will
be
set
aside,
and
the
matter
will
be
returned
to
the
Tax
court
for
a
new
hearing.
Application
allowed.
Email this Content