Cullen,
J:—This
matter
came
on
for
trial
at
Edmonton,
Alberta
on
the
25th
day
of
February
1985.
The
plaintiff
was
not
represented
by
counsel,
but
did
an
admirable
job
presenting
her
case.
There
is
no
dispute
concerning
the
amounts
paid
but
only
as
to
the
characterization
of
these
payments.
It
is
clear
on
the
evidence,
that
the
payments
were
made
pursuant
to
a
Court
order.
There
had
been
some
suggestion
in
the
pleadings
that
because
the
amounts
were
less
than
those
provided
for
in
the
order,
and
often
late,
that
they
were
not
pursuant
to
the
order.
The
case
of
The
Queen
v
Barbara
D
Sills
heard
by
the
Court
of
Appeal
of
the
Federal
Court
on
February
28,
1984
resolved
that
matter,
and
payments
such
as
those
made
here
are
clearly
pursuant
to
the
order,
even
though
often
late
and
sometimes
for
smaller
amounts.
Paragraph
56(l)(c)
leaves
no
doubt
that
the
amounts
paid
are
income
in
the
hands
of
Mrs
James.
The
plaintiff
argued
that
the
section
is
unconstitutional
in
that
each
parent
is
treated
differently
by
the
Income
Tax
Act.
That
may
very
well
be
true
in
the
future
when
section
15
of
the
Charter
becomes
law,
and
certainly
will
be
arguable
given
the
fact
that
the
vast
majority
of
people
receiving
maintenance
money
for
the
support
of
children
are
women.
For
the
purposes
of
this
case
today
I
feel
bound
by
the
decision
of
the
Appeal
Division
of
the
Federal
Court
unreported
but
identified
as
A-105-83
in
the
Federal
Court
records,
and
paragraph
56(l)(c)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
The
appeal
is
therefore
dismissed
without
costs.
Email this Content