Taylor
J.T.C.C.:
—
These
are
appeals
heard
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
on
July
31,
1996,
under
the
Informal
Procedure,
with
respect
to
assessments
for
the
years
1993
and
1994,
in
which
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
claims
for
the
Disability
Tax
Credit
provided
in
the
Income
Tax
Act
(the
“Act”).
The
Notice
of
Appeal
dealing
with
the
complaints
read:
1.
Incontinence
of
urine
and
feces
-
I
do
not
have
the
control
needed
to
get
to
the
toilet
in
time
unless
I
am
right
next
to
the
washroom,
this
happens
at
least
every
half
hour
of
the
day
and
several
times
during
the
night.
This
requires
me
to
wear
pads
at
all
times.
The
bowels
move
at
least
four
times
a
day
and
often
in
the
middle
of
the
night
which
I
have
no
feeling
of
the
need
to
relieve
myself
so
am
unable
to
control
it.
I
am
also
in
excruciating
pain
during
and
after
each
episode.
2.
Cervical
spondylosis
-
requiring
me
to
wear
soft
neck
collars.
3.
Lumbar
disc
prolapse
with
sciatica
-
requiring
a
back
brace
to
be
worn.
4.
Migraines
-
nerve
block
being
administered
once
a
week
to
keep
the
pain
under
control.
5.
Intra-abdominal
adhesions
causing
severe
cramping.
A
good
part
of
my
day
is
taken
up
in
the
washroom,
leaving
not
much
time
for
doing
normal
everyday
things.
A
letter
dated
July
27,
1996,
from
the
Appellant’s
General
Practitioner
-
Dr.
P.J.
Lin,
was
filed
in
Court,
and
stated:
I
am
writing
in
support
of
Elizabeth
Russell’s
disability
tax
credit.
I
would
like
to
(state)
that
this
patient
has
a
genuine
disability
and
that
she
is
unable
to
do
the
activities
of
daily
living
without
great
assistance.
She
is
also
unable
to
pursue
any
form
of
gainful
employment
presently
nor
in
the
foreseeable
future.
By
definition,
she
is
disabled
and
hence
qualifies
for
her
disability
tax
credit.
Mrs.
Russell
was
assisted
to
Court,
and
in
Court,
by
her
son.
She
testified
and
answered
questions
regarding
the
above.
It
was
appropriate
even
if
distressing
for
the
Appellant,
that
the
Respondent
required
her
to
appear
in
person
in
order
to
do
so.
It
would
have
been
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
assess
her
condition
in
any
other
way.
In
my
view,
she
qualifies
under
at
least
two
of
the
requirements
outlined
under
Section
118.4(1)
of
the
Act,
specifically
(v)
and
(vi).
I
see
no
reason
to
further
elaborate
on
the
evidence
and
circumstances.
The
appeals
are
allowed,
and
the
entire
matter
is
referred
back
to
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
for
reconsideration
and
reassessment.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content