Date: 20020225
Docket: 2001-3066-IT-I
BETWEEN:
BARRY BISSONNETTE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered orally from the Bench at
Cranbrook, British Columbia on January 8,
2002)
Miller, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal by Mr.
Bissonnette in connection with his 1999 taxation year. The appeal
concerns certain payments that Mr. Bissonnette claims are medical
expenses, qualifying as such pursuant to subparagraph
118(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
[2] Mr. Bissonnette and his wife
travelled to Mexico for a two-week stay in December 1999 at a
facility called Sanoviv. Sanoviv was advertised as a health
retreat, though part of it was licensed as a private hospital. I
would like to read how it is described in an advertising pamphlet
tendered as an exhibit presented at trial:
The Sanoviv facility was built with gracious tranquility in
mind. Sitting on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean on Baja,
California's bay of rest, Sanoviv affords the optimal
environment for renewal and regeneration. The combination of
positive atmospheric, electromagnetic, and geographic factors
makes Sanoviv one of the healthiest locations on earth. Guests
use the authentically restored library, dining and living rooms
of the Levi Strauss mansion. The spectacular Great Hall leads to
the health-stuff store, psycho-spiritual facilities and the
teaching kitchen. The Sanoviv Towers include 47 luxurious guest
suites, dining room, 20 health assessment and therapy rooms, a
licensed hospital facility, laboratory, conference centre and spa
facilities.
[3] The Bissonnettes came to know of
Sanoviv, as Mrs. Bissonnette had some dealings on a business
basis with the founder, a Dr. Wenz. Sanoviv charged a flat
$10,000 US, approximately $15,000 Canadian, fee for the
Bissonnettes' two-week stay. Of this amount, Revenue Canada
allowed approximately $5,500 Canadian for legitimate medical
services. The balance of approximately $9,500 was denied, as was
the Bissonnettes' travel expenses of $1,064 for getting to
and from Mexico.
[4] In discharge statements, Mr. and
Mrs. Bissonnette were diagnosed respectively as suffering from
exogenous obesity with glucemic discontrol and Diabetes 2 for Mr.
Bissonnette, and exogenous obesity, pain in the lumbar area,
urinary incontinence and hiatal hernia for Mrs. Bissonnette.
[5] The type of treatments they
received at Sanoviv consisted of quite an assortment of both
medical and what has come to be called "alternative" or
"complementary" medicines. I will simply list some of
these treatments: vitamin and mineral supplements; bioresonance
therapy; spa and massage; colonics; hydrotherapies; diet and
lifestyle recommendations. As well, the Bissonnettes attended
classes on healing, nutrition, humour and meditation. No proof of
prescriptions was provided for the vitamins and supplements
taken. There was an attempt at a breakdown of the cost of these
various treatments, but this was difficult as it was clear this
was a package deal for $10,000 US.
[6] It was also clear that,
notwithstanding what appeared to be a high-end first-class
accommodation, the treatments were not exactly enjoyable. Mr.
Bissonnette described the diet as consisting only of vegetables
and water, though the promotional materials suggested the
"daily feast" was somewhat more tempting than that
description. If it was only vegetables, they were certainly
well-presented.
[7] It was acknowledged by both Mr.
and Mrs. Bissonnette that the room and board cost was
approximately $6,000 US, though they maintained this was all part
of the overall medical services provided. The amount of room and
board, plus the amount of medical expenses actually allowed by
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency eat up most of the $10,000 fee,
as approximately $3,700 US was allowed by CCRA. So the bulk of
the Appellant's claim is that the $6,000 US for room and
board represents medical services.
[8] In materials from Sanoviv, the
institution itself appears to break down its treatments between
regular hospital services and regular medical services on the one
hand, and other services such as massage, chelation, ozone
therapy, colonics and bioresonance on the other hand. The
Bissonnettes both stated that they both felt healthier for the
Sanoviv experience. Indeed, Mrs. Bissonnette indicated no
Canadian medical practitioner had provided a treatment with such
successful results. She provided letters from two Canadian
physicians, dated in May 2001, which indicate they are not aware
of a similar facility in Canada.
[9] The issue is simply what is or is
not included in the expression "medical services". This
is found in subparagraph 118.2(2)(a). I will read
that:
For the purpose of subsection (1) a medical expense of an
individual is an amount paid to a medical practitioner, dentist
or nurse, or a public or licensed private hospital in respect of
medical or dental services provided to a person (in this
subsection referred to as a patient) who is the individual, the
individual's spouse...
et cetera.
[10] Neither side could provide a concise
legal definition for the term "medical services", but
counsel for the Respondent provided some case law that helps
determine what is not medical services, and she quite adamantly
maintained the cost of room and board in an attractive Mexican
health retreat is definitely not medical services. I agree with
her.
[11] I am pleased that Mr. and Mrs.
Bissonnette truly felt better after their two weeks in Mexico. I
certainly need no convincing that a number of alternative
treatments combined with healthy dietary and exercise habits can
have a remarkably positive impact on one's health. But the
Income Tax Act is very specific in paragraph 118.2(2) in
setting out what qualified for medical expenses, and to qualify
under subparagraph 118.2(2)(a) the expense must be for
medical services.
[12] At this stage in the evolution of
Canada's medical practice, alternative treatments are just
starting to gain some recognition as justified, well-researched
medical treatments. I believe case law over the next few years
will expand our understanding of what can legitimately be
considered medical services. However, I also believe that $6,000
US for room and board at a health retreat does not, under the
most liberal interpretation of medical services, qualify. This is
not a case which can expand the definition of medical services.
Mr. and Mrs. Bissonnette should be pleased on two fronts with
their trip to Mexico: first, that they felt so much better; and
second, that CCRA allowed approximately $5,500 Canadian for some
of the costs incurred at Sanoviv. As these were costs for medical
services that I am satisfied could be obtained in this area in
British Columbia, I am also unable to allow the $1,064 travel
expense, as subparagraph 118.2(2)(b) requires substantial
equivalent medical services are not available in that locality.
Here, clearly they were available.
[13] There may not be a similar facility in
Canada that contains medical services and alternative services in
a health-retreat setting. Frankly, that is too bad. I agree with
Mrs. Bissonnette that an all-service facility like Sanoviv is a
sign of things to come. The disallowed expenses incurred in 1999,
however, simply do not qualify under subparagraph 118.2(2) as
amounts paid in respect of medical services.
[14] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 25th day of February, 2002.
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content