Teskey,
T.C.CJ.:—
The
appellant
elected
to
have
her
appeals
from
assessments
for
the
years
1989
and
1990
heard
pursuant
to
the
informal
procedure.
Issue
The
single
issue
before
me
is
whether
the
appellant
qualified
for
the
disability
tax
credit
pursuant
to
section
118.3
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
R.S.C.
1952,
c.
148
(am.
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63)
(the"Act").
Facts
The
appellant
gave
evidence
on
her
own
behalf,
as
well
as
her
daughter,
and
her
employer.
Over
the
objection
of
the
respondent,
medical
reports
were
filed
by
her.
One
from
Dr.
D.S.
Wallace,
F.R.C.P.(c)
and
one
from
Dr.
Anne-
Marie
Crawford,
F.R.C.P.(c).
On
behalf
of
the
respondent,
Dr.
Eleanor
W.
Sutherland,
a
general
practitioner
gave
evidence.
Prior
to
giving
her
opinion
to
the
Court,
she
had
reviewed
the
12201
reports
for
both
years
(these
contain
statements
by
the
appellant
concerning
her
disability
and
her
doctors’
medical
certificates),
as
well
she
reviewed
the
Disability
Tax
Credit
questionnaire
sent
to
the
appellant
by
Health
and
Welfare.
Dr.
Sutherland
confirmed
the
rejection
of
the
appellant's
applications.
Furthermore,
she
read
the
two
medical
reports
filed
by
the
appellant
at
the
trial
and
they
did
not
change
her
opinion.
Section
118.3
contains
the
provision
in
the
Act
for
a
tax
credit
where
disability
occurs.
For
the
purpose
of
the
appeal,
paragraph
(a)
is
the
important
one
which
reads:
(a)
an
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
health
or
physical
impairment.
.
.
.
Section
118.4
defines
impairment
in
paragraph
(a)
thereof
which
reads:
(a)
a
person
shall
be
considered
to
have
a
severe
and
prolonged
impairment
only
if
by
reason
thereof
he
is
markedly
restricted
in
his
activities
of
daily
living
and
the
impairment
has
lasted
or
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
last
for
a
continuous
period
of
at
least
12
months.
.
.
.
There
is
no
need
to
go
into
the
appellant's
impairment
as
she
was
able
to
work
for
the
first
eight
months
of
1989,
and
for
the
months
of
March,
April,
May
and
September
through
to
December
of
1990.
At
no
time
did
her
disability
last
or
was
expected
to
last
for
a
continuous
period
of
12
months,
as
required
by
the
definition
of
prolonged
impairment
in
section
118.4
of
the
Act.
The
appeal
would
fail
on
this
ground
alone.
Notwithstanding
the
above,
on
the
evidence
before
me
and
on
review
of
all
of
the
medical
evidence,
her
impairment,
at
best,
could
only
be
described
as
moderate
and
not
severe
and
prolonged.
I
accept
the
opinion
of
Dr.
Sutherland
as
being
sound
in
light
of
the
wording
of
sections
118.3
and
118.4.
The
appeals
are
dismissed.
Appeals
dismissed.
Email this Content