P.R.
Dussault
J.T.C.C.
(orally):—
Unfortunately,
Mr.
Boucher,
I
must
dismiss
your
appeal.
The
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the
"Act")
in
fact
makes
distinctions
according
to
the
laws
of
different
provinces.
Different
provisions
have
been
adopted
for
Ontario
and
for
Quebec.
On
this
point,
I
must
agree
with
Miss
Bélanger.
This
was
done
in
order
to
reconcile
the
Act
with
the
various
provincial
statutes
on
family
matters,
which
it
would
be
difficult
to
standardize.
I
think
this
is
a
case
where,
unfortunately,
you
are
caught
by
the
technicalities
of
the
Act,
as
it
is
only
a
question
of
technicalities.
Fraud
has
never
been
at
issue.
In
the
Act,
distinctions
have
been
made
in
setting
dates
of
application
and
certain
conditions
that
must
be
met.
However,
I
recognize
that
from
a
practical
standpoint
it
could
be
very
difficult
for
you
to
know
this,
since
Royal
Assent
to
S.C.
1988,
c.
55,
subsection
37(1)
was
given
on
September
13,
1988
and
a
joint
election
had
to
be
made
before
the
end
of
the
year.
That
election
was
not
to
be
filed
in
the
tax
return
(usually
filed
in
April
of
the
following
year,
that
is
four
months
later)
but
during
the
year
itself.
In
the
circumstances,
therefore,
the
condition
was
a
very
difficult
one
to
meet.
However,
the
fact
remains
that
is
the
wording
of
the
Act
and
the
difficulty
in
determining
its
substance
well
in
advance
does
not
mean
it
does
not
apply.
It
even
happens
that
statutes
are
adopted
retroactively.
That
being
so,
I
think
it
is
strictly
a
technical
matter,
and
I
do
not
think
this
is
the
type
of
discrimination
covered
by
subsection
15(1)
of
the
Charter.
Very
strong
evidence
and
very
convincing
arguments
would
be
needed
to
establish
that
kind
of
discrimination.
I
do
not
feel
I
am
able
to
make
such
a
decision
based
on
what
was
submitted
this
morning.
As
the
conditions
of
paragraph
60(c.1)
of
the
Act
have
not
been
met
for
1988,
I
am
unfortunately
obliged
to
dismiss
your
appeal.
You
will
understand
that
I
simply
have
no
choice.
The
Act
exists,
I
cannot
alter
it
and
I
must
give
effect
to
it.
I
think
it
would
have
been
better
to
do
this
through
remission
orders
or
dates
of
application.
I
take
the
liberty
of
making
this
comment.
So,
even
though
I
understand
your
point
of
view,
even
if
I
realize
your
frustration,
I
cannot
act
otherwise.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content