Docket: 2008-2230(IT)I
BETWEEN:
HAZEL LYNN BENTLEY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal heard on March 18, 2009, at Vancouver, British Columbia.
Before: The Honourable
Justice Gaston Jorré
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Natasha Reid
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the reassessment made under the
Income Tax Act for the 2006 taxation year is dismissed in accordance
with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of June 2009.
"Gaston
Jorré"
Citation: 2009 TCC 316
Date: 20090609
Docket: 2008-2230(IT)I
BETWEEN:
HAZEL LYNN BENTLEY,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Jorré J.
[1]
The issue in this
appeal is whether the Appellant can deduct various naturopathic remedies as
medical expenses. There is no real dispute as to the facts; the matter turns on
the proper application of the law.
[2]
The Appellant suffers
from a variety of chronic illnesses. The overall effect of these illnesses is
severe and, in the opinion of her family physician, the net result is that she
is unable to work. Some of these conditions cause her widespread pain.
[3]
The Appellant is
intolerant of most pharmacological drugs. As a result, she takes a number of
naturopathic medicines; the course of action was recommended to her by her
current doctor.
[4]
In filing her 2006
income tax return, the Appellant claimed a number of medical expenses. On
reassessment, the portion of the expenses claimed relating to (i) visits
to the naturopath and (ii) the purchase of naturopathic medicines was
disallowed.
[5]
The Appellant filed a
notice of objection and, as a result, the Minister reassessed again and allowed
the visits to the naturopath, but not the purchase of naturopathic medicines.
[6]
The naturopathic
medicines were bought at the naturopath’s office.
[7]
The staff members of
the naturopath’s office who dispensed the naturopathic medicines were not
pharmacists licensed by the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia.
[8]
For the expenses
claimed to be deductible, they must fall within paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of
the Income Tax Act. That paragraph reads in part:
118.2(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a medical expense of an
individual is an amount paid
. . .
(n) for drugs, medicaments or other preparations or
substances . . . for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a
disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof or in
restoring, correcting or modifying an organic function, purchased for use by
the patient as prescribed by a medical practitioner . . . and as recorded by
a pharmacist;
[9]
I have great sympathy for
the Appellant who appears to benefit from the naturopathic medicines. However,
it is clear that it is an essential requirement of paragraph 118.2(2)(n)
that the sale of the medication must be “recorded by a pharmacist”. A pharmacist
means a person who is recognized as such under the relevant provincial
legislation.
[10]
That requirement is not
met here and I must dismiss the appeal.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th
day of June 2009.
"Gaston Jorré"
CITATION: 2009 TCC 316
COURT FILE NO.: 2008-2230(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: HAZEL LYNN BENTLEY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver,
British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice Gaston Jorré
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 9, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Natasha Reid
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content