C. Marguerite Marchand v. Minister of National Revenue, [1987] 2 CTC 2309, 87 DTC 630

St.-Onge, T.C.J. [Translation]:—The appeal of Mrs. Marguerite C. Marchand was heard on May 4, 1987 in the city of Montréal, province of Quebec, and the issue is whether the appellant reported all her taxable income for the 1983 taxation year. The facts alleged by the respondent are as follows:

(I) Paragraphs 2 and 7 of the reply to the notice of appeal form an integral part of my judgment; they read as follows:

2. In computing her total income for the 1983 taxation year, the appellant reported as "Other Income" income of $24,314.52 received in respect of wage insurance during that same year;

7. In assessing the appellant for the 1983 taxation year the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue, relied on the following facts, inter alia:

(a) During the 1983 taxaton year the appellant received $49,450.63 from the insurance company La Mutuelle SSQ in wage insurance benefits;

(b) The said benefits were paid to the appellant as follows:

(i) A gross amount of $32,519.50 was paid to the appellant on March 9, 1983

covering the period from January 4, 1982 to February 28, 1983;

(ii) The balance of $16,931.13 was paid to the appellant during 1983, covering the rest of 1983;

(c) When filing her income tax return for 1983, the appellant reported only $24,314.52 in respect of her wage insurance, for the period covering 1983 only;

(d) Even though the sum of $49,450.63 received by the appellant from La Mutuelle SSQ in 1983 consisted partly in wage insurance covering a period prior to 1983, the total benefits received in 1983, being $49,450.63, should have been included in the appellant's income for her 1983 taxation year;

(e) The sum of $49,450.63 was received by the appellant in 1983 as a benefit payable on a periodic basis in respect of the loss of all or any part of the income from an office or employment pursuant to an insurance plan;

At the hearing the appellant admitted paragraphs 2 and 7, subparagraphs (a), (b)(i), (ii) and subparagraph 7(e). She denied subparagraphs (c) and (d). The evidence revealed that the appellant had received the sum of $49,450.63 in 1983 solely on account of wages.

(11) The wage insurance contract stipulated that 80 per cent of the salary would be payable on a periodic basis. This was admitted by the appellant, moreover.

The respondent referred the Court to the decision in Jacques Ouimet v. M.N.R., [1979] C.T.C. 2172 at 2174; 79 D.T.C. 16. He read what his colleague, Mr. Verdon, had said: [Translation] "My first proposition is that the expression ‘payable on a periodic basis pursuant to a disability insurance plan' in subparagraph (ii) means that the amounts must be payable on a periodic basis under the contract, regardless of whether or not they were in fact paid on a periodic basis.”

In that judgment Judge Taylor concluded as follows: [Translation] “In my view, the fact that the payments came to the appellant through his employer and the fact he did not receive them directly or immediately were not relevant. It is clearly stated in the contract that the payments were based on the appellant's monthly wages and that the benefits were payable periodically. The real issue is not when or how the benefits were paid but rather when and how they were payable.”

We are dealing with exactly the same situation here. For the reasons given in that case and in view of the facts presented before me, I must dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.