Banman v. The Queen, docket 2000-4039-IT-I (Informal Procedure)

Date: 20010220

Docket: 2000-4039-IT-I

BETWEEN:

MARILYN B. BANMAN,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Reasons for Judgment

(Delivered orally from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on February 20, 2001)

Bowman, A.C.J.

[1]            I will render judgment in this case. This is a rather sad case. It is an appeal from an assessment for 1998, which disallows the cost of certain vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, supplements purchased by the appellant. The appellant and her family have a long history of medical problems of one kind or another. Her daughter had lupus, she had originally chronic fatigue syndrome, they have a problem with their thyroid. Her husband had had pneumonia 14 times. They went to doctors — who, following conventional wisdom, pumped them full of various experimental drugs or rather absurdly told them to change their lifestyles. I think their lifestyle was quite acceptable, but that seemed to be the extent of the intelligence applied by the doctors to their medical condition. They went to a place called Natural Lifestyle which sells homeopathic medicines, herbs, vitamins, minerals, and evidently, they were very successful with these alternative type of treatments.

[2]            Although the medical profession has not moved very far in this regard, some doctors tend to believe in natural treatments, others don't. For whatever reason, whether it be lack of knowledge or self-interest, the medical profession has not been prescribing these things.

[3]            The section under which the appellant claims a tax credit is section 118.2, and specifically subsection (2), paragraph (n), which limits a tax credit in respect of drugs, medicaments or other preparations or substances other than those described in paragraph (k) manufactured, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof or in restoring, correcting or modifying organic function purchased for use by the patient as prescribed by a medical practitioner or a dentist and as recorded by a pharmacist.

[4]            I have great sympathy for the appellant. I think she has very intelligently gone to an alternative method of treatment and has successfully treated medical conditions of her husband, herself and her daughter. Nonetheless, the herbal preparations, the vitamins and other things that she takes that she purchases from Natural Lifestyle are not prescribed by a medical practitioner or dentist and are not recorded by a pharmacist. That is the key condition and unfortunately it is not met. I have to take the law as I find it. I would like to be able to help them, but I merely interpret the law. Counsel referred me to a couple of cases. Mongillo v. The Queen, 95 DTC 199, and Williams v. R., [1998] 1 C.T.C. 2813.

[5]            I might just add one further point. I am aware from what the appellant tells me and I am aware generally that alternative medicines and homeopathic treatment are making great progress these days. I can well understand why in paragraph (n) the government requires that certain medications be prescribed by a medical practitioner because there is as yet not very much control on the labelling or the sale of alternative medicines and that needs to be done.

[6]            Sooner or later, however, I think the government is going to have to face the fact that homeopathic medicines, alternative forms of treatment, herbs, natural healing, that sort of thing are so prevalent it should consider an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would permit a tax credit in respect of these things. The appellant is a very good example of a person who has used alternative methods successfully. I am sorry that I can't give her any relief, but I do commend her for her courage in coming to the court.

[7]            The appeal is dismissed.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of February 2001.

"D.G.H. Bowman"

A.C.J.

COURT FILE NO.:                                                 2000-4039(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                               Between Marilyn B. Banman and

                                                                                Her Majesty The Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:                                         Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

DATE OF HEARING:                                           February 8, 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                      The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman

                                                                                Associate Chief Judge

DATE OF ORAL JUDGMENT:                           February 8, 2001

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:                                                 The Appellant herself

Counsel for the Respondent:                              Jeff Pniowsky, Esq.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:                

Name:                      --

Firm:                        --

For the Respondent:                                             Morris Rosenberg

                                                                                Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                                                Ottawa, Canada

2000-4039(IT)I

BETWEEN:

MARILYN B. BANMAN,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

Appeal heard on February 8, 2001, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by

The Honourable D.G.H. Bowman

Associate Chief Judge

Appearances

For the Appellant:                      The Appellant herself

Counsel for the Respondent:      Jeff Pniowsky, Esq.

JUDGMENT

          It is ordered that the appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1998 taxation year be dismissed.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 20th day of February 2001.

"D.G.H. Bowman"

A.C.J.