Per
curiam
(orally):
The
appeal
of
Laurent
Beaudet
was
heard
on
July
31,
1996
at
Montréal,
province
of
Quebec.
It
concerns
a
non-refundable
tax
credit
for
serious
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment
in
respect
of
the
1994
taxation
year.
The
respondent
argued
that
the
appellant
was
not
entitled
to
this
tax
credit
and
alleged
the
following:
[TRANSLATION]
6.
(a)
The
disability
tax
credit
certificate
dated
March
20,
1995
was
signed
by
an
authorized
physician,
Dr.
Nguyen
Van-Tri,
and
he
diagnosed
that
the
appellant
had
difficulty
moving
because
of
the
sequelae
of
poliomyelitis;
(b)
during
the
1994
taxation
year
the
appellant
was
not
obviously
limited
in
his
activities
of
daily
living
as
the
result
of
a
serious
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment.
At
the
hearing
the
appellant
admitted
subparagraph
6(a)
and
denied
6(b).
He
then
filed
a
list
of
activities
which
it
was
impossible
for
him
to
do
and
which
it
was
difficult
for
him
to
do.
[TRANSLATION]
ACTIVITIES
IMPOSSIBLE
TO
DO:
taking
a
shower;
walking
long
distances;
carrying
heavy
objects;
sports.
ACTIVITIES
DIFFICULT
TO
DO:
Walking
over
uneven
surfaces;
walking
when
surface
is
water-logged;
climbing
a
stepladder;
getting
up
on
a
chair;
leaning
over
to
get
things
out
of
cupboards;
putting
on
my
overshoes;
walking
in
the
winter;
getting
up
and
down
stairs;
getting
into
a
car;
kneeling
without
help:
sitting
down
in
the
bath
without
help;
this
handicap
causes
me
back
problems.
The
appellant
is
a
machinist
and
works
regularly.
To
establish
his
disability
he
filed
the
doctor’s
certificate
dated
June
21,
1994
giving
details
regarding
the
disability:
in
Paragraph
4,
that
he
could
walk
100
metres
on
level
ground
(one
block)
using
an
aid.
In
Paragraph
9
it
states:
Having
read
the
information
on
this
form,
in
your
opinion,
has
your
patient
a
prolonged
impairment
that
is
severe
enough
to
markedly
restrict
all
or
almost
all
of
the
time,
his
or
her
ability
to
perform
one
or
more
basic
activities
of
daily
living,
even
with
the
use
of
appropriate
aids,
medication
or
therapy?
The
answer
was
no.
His
companion
for
15
years
testified
that
the
appellant
has
a
restricted
driving
licence
and
can
only
drive
an
automatic
vehicle.
He
also
cannot
do
cross-country
skiing.
She
felt
he
was
entitled
to
the
physical
disability
tax
credit.
The
appellant
works
regularly
as
a
machinist
and
the
evidence
was
that
he
could
perform
the
essential
activities
of
daily
living
and
was
not
markedly
restricted
in
those
activities
within
the
meaning
of
ss.
118.3
and
118.4
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appeal
is
accordingly
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content