Persaud – Tax Court of Canada applies “the presumption of consistent application” to find that “resident” has the same meaning in s. 118(6)(b) as elsewhere

The taxpayer paid the $18,700 cost of the hospitalization and rehabilitative care of his father (Dennis), a Guyanese resident, who had a heart attack while in Canada on a visitor’s visa for a two-week stay.

Bocock J found that the taxpayer could not claim the s. 118.2 medical expense deduction because Dennis did not satisfy the requirement in s. 118(6)(b) of being “resident in Canada at any time in the year.” Bocock J noted that the quoted phrase was used 17 times in the Act including in the charging provision (s. 2(1)) and applied “the presumption of consistent application” to find that Dennis was required to have been ordinarily resident in Canada, which he was not.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Persaud v. The King, 2024 TCC 42 under s. 118(6)(b).