St-Onge
J.T.C.C.:
—
The
appeal
of
Audrey
Wilson
was
heard
on
the
27th
of
September
1995
in
the
City
of
Vancouver,
and
the
issue
is
whether
she
is
allowed
to
claim
a
disability
deduction
in
her
1992-93
taxation
years.
In
reassessing
the
appellant
the
Minister
made
the
following
assumptions
of
fact
(a)
the
appellant
has
rheumatoid
arthritis
and
(b)
the
impairment
did
not
cause
appellant
to
be
markedly
restricted
in
the
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
At
the
hearing
she
testified
that
she
was
not
able
to
walk
more
than
100
metres
because
of
her
rheumatoid
arthritis
and
had
constant
severe
pains
in
her
feet.
Upon
cross-examination
she
stated
that
in
1992
and
1993
she
was
living
in
an
apartment
with
her
husband
who
works
all
the
time
that
her
mother
did
the
housekeeping
and
that
she
did
not
use
crutches
or
a
cane.
In
June
1992
she
was
on
an
exercise
program
during
which
they
did
some
work
on
her
hand.
She
admitted
that
if
she
leave
the
house
for
more
than
an
hour
such
as
to
go
to
do
shopping
she
has
to
rest
on
her
return;
that
her
hips
and
knees
are
normal;
ankles
and
feet
are
thickened
and
tender
but
not
restricted;
that
she
certainly
will
be
better
with
a
more
supportive
and
appropriate
pair
of
shoes,
and
she
was
provided
with
them;
that
she
was
not
able
to
walk
more
than
20
metres
without
the
assistance
of
her
husband
or
a
cane.
Her
husband
testified
that
she
could
walk
to
a
grocery
store
but
she
was
very
restricted
in
that
activity.
Dr.
Sutherland
testified
as
an
expert
witness.
She
knows
a
lot
about
this
disease
being
a
member
of
a
group
that
review
files
for
disability
credit.
She
explained
that
Dr.
Patterson
had
given
a
certificate
in
which
it
was
mentioned
that
the
appellant
was
not
able
to
control
her
elimination
functions.
Dr.
Patterson
had
to
correct
her
certificate
in
a
letter
dated,
February
13,
1995.
Audrey
Wilson
cannot
walk
more
than
100
metres
without
the
assistance
of
her
husband
or
a
cane.
She
is
not
confined
to
a
bed
or
wheelchair
at
all
times.
She
is
able
to
walk
for
25
metres,
then
rest
for
one
minute,
and
then
walk
again.
She
is
able
to
control
her
elimination
functions.
I
was
in
error
in
completing
the
form
in
this
regard.
She
also
stated
that
the
appellant
should
walk
with
a
light
cane;
that
she
could
walk
enough
to
do
the
basic
activities
of
daily
living.
Upon
cross-examination
she
was
asked
why
with
a
light
cane
and
the
answer
was
because
the
appellant
cannot
lift
more
than
seven
pounds.
She
also
explained
that
with
proper
shoes
and
medication
inflammation
goes
out;
it
is
less
painful
and
the
appellant
would
be
able
to
walk
much
better.
Counsel
for
the
respondent
argued
that
to
get
the
deduction
the
appellant
has
to
fulfill
the
condition
of
section
118.4
which
read
as
follows:
118.4(1)
Nature
of
impairment.
-
For
the
purposes
of
this
subsection
6(16),
sections
118.2
and
118.3
and
this
subsection,
(a)
an
impairment
is
prolonged
where
is
has
lasted,
or
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
last,
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months;
(b)
an
individual’s
ability
to
perform
a
b
basic
activity
of
daily
living
is
markedly
restricted
only
where
all
or
substantially
all
of
the
time,
even
with
therapy
and
the
use
of
appropriate
devices
and
medication,
the
individual
is
blind
or
is
unable
(or
requires
an
inordinate
amount
of
time)
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living;
(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
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;
and
(d)
for
greater
certainty,
no
other
activity,
including
working,
housekeeping
or
a
social
or
recreational
activity,
shall
be
considered
as
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
Walking
is
the
activity
that
should
be
examined
and
the
evidence
has
shown
that
she
was
able
to
walk
enough
to
perform
the
basic
activities
for
daily
living.
The
fact
that
she
could
not
go
to
work
should
not
be
taken
into
consideration
because
of
paragraph
18.4(d).
As
may
be
seen
in
the
evidence,
the
appellant
was
not
markedly
restricted
and
was
able
to
walk
to
perform
the
basic
activity
of
daily
living,
consequently,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content