Rip,
T.CJ.:—The
appellant,
James
G.
Morecroft
("Morecroft")
appeals
from
his
assessment
for
1988
on
the
basis
that
he
is
entitled
to
a
Northern
Residence
deduction
of
$4,050
since
he
resided
in
a
prescribed
area
throughout
a
period
of
six
months
or
more,
in
accordance
with
section
110.7
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
and
sections
7302
and
7303
of
the
Regulations
and
Schedules
IX
and
X
to
the
Regulations.
The
respondent
admits
Morecroft
was
employed
during
1988
in
a
prescribed
area
and
was
not
in
receipt
of
any
special
allowance
for
being
employed
in
a
prescribed
area.
However,
he
denies
the
appellant
resided
in
a
prescribed
area
in
1988
throughout
a
period
of
six
months
or
more.
Morecroft
works
as
an
excavator
operator
and
obtains
"out
of
the
way
jobs",
as
he
described
it.
In
1988
he
worked
for
a
bulldozing
company
in
the
Carmanah
Valley
on
Vancouver
Island
of
British
Columbia.
He
set
up
a
20-foot
trailer
in
the
Clo-oose
area
on
the
west
coast
of
Vancouver
Island.
A
shed
was
built
on
the
side
of
the
trailer
"to
keep
things
dry
and
the
trailer
up”.
The
trailer
was
connected
to
a
nearby
creek
for
running
water;
propane
was
used
for
heat
and
a
12-volt
electrical
system
was
installed.
He
would
keep
some
clothing
at
the
trailer.
The
trailer,
said
Morecroft,
was
set
up
for
all
12
months
in
1988
and
was
never
moved
from
the
area.
"The
trailer
was
basically
my
home,”
Morecroft
testified.
He
ate
and
slept
in
the
trailer
and,
he
said,
he
conducted
his
job
from
the
trailer.
He
described
the
trailer
as
his
principal
residence.
He
stated
there
were
no
other
living
accommodations
in
the
area.
The
nearest
motel
and
rooming
house
was
70
miles
away
in
Port
Alberni.
I
find
the
trailer
was
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment.
In
1988
Morecroft's
wife
and
three
children
lived
in
Nanaimo,
B.C.
He
worked
in
the
Carmanah
Valley
in
1988
from
January
5
to
July
21
and
from
September
20
to
the
end
of
December.
Morecroft
would
work
for
five
days
and
take
two
days
off.
He
would
frequently
spend
two
days
in
Nanaimo
only
to
pick
up
supplies
since,
in
his
view,
there
was
not
enough
time
to
organize
a
weekend.
On
days
off
from
work
he
remained
at
the
trailer
to
help
keep
the
roads
open.
The
appellant
did
not,
during
the
seven
and
one-half
month
period,
move
his
household
effects,
normally
found
in
the
trailer,
from
the
prescribed
area
to
outside
that
area
and
cease
to
reside
in
the
area.
When
work
shut
down
due
to
danger
of
fire
in
the
forest
during
the
period
July
21
to
September
19,
the
appellant
went
to
Nanaimo
to
be
with
his
family.
When
he
was
in
Nanaimo
he
stayed
at
the
family
home.
His
mail
was
directed
to
Nanaimo.
As
special
family
events
took
place,
he
made
efforts
to
be
present
in
Nanaimo.
He
testified
he
did
not
consider
Nanaimo
his
home,
only
his
mailing
address
or
place
he
would
go
to
gather
supplies.
Subsection
110.7(1)
reads,
in
part,
as
follows:
In
computing
the
taxable
income
for
a
taxation
year
of
an
individual
who,
throughout
a
period
of
not
less
than
6
months
commencing
or
ending
in
the
year,
resided
in
an
area
that
was
a
prescribed
area
for
the
year
or
for
one
of
the
2
preceding
taxation
years
and
who
files
a
claim
in
prescribed
form
with
his
return
of
income
for
the
year
pursuant
to
section
150,
there
may
be
deducted
(a)
where
the
area
was
a
prescribed
area
for
the
year,
100%,
.
.
.
of
such
of
the
following
amounts
as
are
applicable:
(e)
.
.
.
subject
to
subsection
(2),
the
lesser
of
(i)
20%
of
his
income
for
the
year,
and
(ii)
the
aggregate
of
(A)
$450
multiplied
by
the
quotient
obtained
when
the
number
of
days
in
the
year
included
in
that
portion
of
the
period
throughout
which
he
maintained
and
resided
in
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
(except
any
day
included
in
computing
a
deduction
claimed
under
this
paragraph
by
another
person
who
resided
on
that
day
in
the
establishment)
is
divided
by
30,
and
(B)
$225
multiplied
by
the
amount,
if
any,
by
which
(I)
the
quotient
obtained
when
the
number
of
days
in
the
year
included
in
the
period
is
divided
by
30
exceeds
(II)
the
quotient
determined
under
clause
(A).
The
parties
dispute
whether
or
not
the
appellant
resided
in
the
area
that
was
a
prescribed
area
throughout
a
period
of
not
less
than
six
months
commencing
or
ending
in
1988.
The
equivalent
to
the
phrase
"throughout
a
period
of
six
months.
.
.”
in
the
French
language
text
of
subsection
110.7(1)
is
“pendant
une
période
d'au
moins
six
mois
d’affilée..
“.
The
word
"throughout"
is
defined
as
follows:
”.
.
.adv
.
.
.
b.
Through
the
whole
of
a
time
or
course
of
action;
at
every
moment
or
point;
.
.
.".
The
Shorter
Oxford
English
Dictionary
on
Historical
Principles.
“during
the
whole
time
or
action:
from
beginning
to
end.
.
.".
Webster's
Ninth
New
Collegiate
Dictionary.
The
word
"d'affilée"
is
refined
as
follows:
‘A
la
file,
de
suite,
sans
interruption".
De
Robert
Dictionnaire
de
langue
Française.
”.
.
.
sans
arrêt,
sans
interruption
.
.
.”.
Dictionnaire
Encyclopédique
Quillet.
"Throughout",
therefore,
means
continuously
or
without
interruption.
This
is
the
interpretation
of
the
word
“throughout”
indicated
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Thomson
v.
M.N.R.,
[1945]
Ex.
C.R.
17;
[1945]
C.T.C.
63;
2
D.T.C.
684;
[1946]
S.C.R.
209;
[1946]
C.T.C.
51;
2
D.T.C.
812
in
considering
the
difference
in
the
meaning
of
the
expressions
"during
the
year"
and
throughout
the
year".
See
the
comments
of
Kerwin,
Rand
and
Estey,
JJ.
at
pages
55,
65
and
71
(D.T.C.
813,
816
and
819;
S.C.R.
215,
226
and
233).
The
respondent
disallowed
the
appellant's
claim
because
he
returned
regularly
to
the
residence
where
his
family
resided;
thus,
respondent's
counsel
argued,
he
was
not
resident
at
some
other
place
throughout
the
six-month
period.
The
purpose
of
section
110.7,
counsel
submitted,
was
to
compensate
people
for
"permanently"
residing
in
distant
places.
The
introductory
paragraph
of
subsection
110.7(1)
uses
the
word
"resided"
by
itself;
there
is
no
word
such
as
"ordinarily"
or
"permanently"
modifying
in
any
way
the
usual
meaning
of
the
verb
"resided":
to
dwell
permanently
or
for
a
considerable
time,
or
to
nave
one's
settled
or
usual
abode,
to
live
in
or
at
a
particular
place.
The
Act
fixes
the
dwelling
time
for
a
taxpayer
to
be
eligible
for
the
deduction
at
not
less
than
six
continuous
months.
The
courts
have
held
that
for
the
purposes
of
the
Act
a
person
may
reside
in
more
than
one
place
at
a
time:
Thomson
v.
M.N.R.,
supra.
Section
110.7
does
not
restrict
a
taxpayer
to
reside
in
only
one
area.
He
need
only
reside
in
a
prescribed
area
throughout
a
period
of
six
months
to
be
eligible
to
claim
the
deduction;
there
is
nothing
in
the
provision
prohibiting
him
from
residing
at
the
same
time
in
another
area.
The
appellant
has
provided
himself
with
a
self-contained
domestic
establishment
in
a
prescribed
area.
He
resided
and
worked
in
that
area
for
a
period
of
seven
and
one-half
months
from
January
5
to
July
21,
1988
and
again
for
another
three
months
from
September
20
to
the
end
of
December,
1988.
That
he
would
leave
the
prescribed
area
for
two
days
at
a
time
to
purchase
supplies,
as
well
as
visit
his
family,
in
Nanaimo
or
to
visit
Nanaimo
to
celebrate
family
events
in
my
view
is
not
a
cessation
in
the
continuity
of
residing
in
the
prescribed
area
any
more
than
a
resident
of
Vancouver
who
may
have
a
cottage
in
the
State
of
Washington
ceases
to
be
resident
of
Canada
when
he
visits
the
State
of
Washington
for
two
days
to
purchase
supplies
for
his
Vancouver
residence.
The
word
"throughout"
means
continuous
or
without
interruption.
However,
the
word
“throughout”
applies
to
the
six-month
period
that
a
person
resided
in
a
prescribed
area.
To
reside
anywhere
does
not
require
the
constant
and
uninterrupted
presence
by
a
person
in
a
particular
area.
The
resident
of
any
area
may
leave
the
area
at
various
times
for
various
lengths
of
time
while
continuing
to
be
a
resident
of
the
area.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
section
110.7
a
person
may
leave
a
prescribed
area
in
which
he
resides
to
obtain
supplies
and
visit
his
family
without
severing
the
claim
of
continuity
of
residence
in
the
area.
There
is
a
reason
a
taxpayer
is
permitted
the
deduction
provided
for
in
section
110.7
and
that
is
the
area
where
he
resides
and
works
is
isolated.
The
evidence
in
the
appeal
at
bar
is
that
there
was
no
place
to
purchase
supplies
close
to
where
the
appellant
resided
in
Clo-oose.
Therefore,
he
went
to
Nanaimo
to
obtain
his
provisions.
As
I
have
already
stated,
to
occasionally
visit
one's
family
ought
not,
and
in
my
view
does
not,
alter
one's
status
of
residence
for
purposes
of
section
110.7.
It
is
quite
obvious
the
appellant
had
ties
to
Nanaimo,
and
it
may
be
that
he
ordinarily
resided
in
Nanaimo.
However,
in
1988,
throughout
a
period
of
more
than
six
months,
he
resided
in
a
prescribed
area.
The
appeal
will
be
allowed
with
costs.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content