McArthur
J.T.C.C.:
—
This
appeal
was
heard
under
the
informal
procedures
of
this
Court.
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue
disallowed
the
tax
credit
claimed
by
the
Appellant
in
respect
of
a
disability
for
the
1993
taxation
year.
The
issue
is
did
the
Appellant
have
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment
within
the
meaning
of
section
118.4
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
and,
therefore,
is
entitled
to
a
non-refundable
tax
credit
in
respect
of
a
disability
amount
as
provided
by
subsection
118.3(1).
The
Appellant
and
his
spouse
were
the
only
trial
witnesses.
In
his
Notice
of
Appeal,
the
Appellant
stated
that
he
has
suffered
rotator
cut
deterioration
on
his
right
shoulder
and
he
has
had
a
series
of
operations
for
this.
He
has
suffered
severe
decompression
of
his
right
shoulder
which
has
resulted
in
chronic
inflammation
of
his
right
shoulder
clavicle
joint.
He
is
unable
to
dress
himself
without
assistance
and
cannot
lift
his
arm
above
90
degrees.
He
requires
assistance
in
conducting
his
daily
living
activities.
The
evidence
confirmed
these
statements.
The
Appellant
suffered
the
loss
of
his
left
finger
in
a
work-related
accident
in
1987.
Beginning
in
1989,
he
experienced
difficulty
with
his
right
shoulder
which
resulted
in
several
operations.
During
the
year
1993,
he
had
considerable
pain
from
both
shoulders
that
prevented
him
from
lifting
his
hands
above
his
shoulders.
Both
hands
were
weakened
to
a
point
where
he
could
not
cut
his
own
meat
and
could
not
dress
himself
without
assistance.
He
presented
to
the
Court
over
20
different
pill
bottles,
which
pills
he
took
on
a
regular
basis
for
a
number
of
ailments,
not
the
least
of
which
was
continuing
pain.
His
wife
assisted
him
with
dressing,
bathing
and
eating.
His
doctor
of
30
years,
K.
D.
Vedova,
was
not
present.
The
doctor
partially
completed
Revenue
Canada’s
Disability
Tax
Credit
Certificate,
February
the
18th,
1994,
paragraph
12
of
which
reads:
Having
read
the
information
on
this
form,
in
your
opinion,
has
your
patient
a
prolonged
impairment
that
is
severe
enough
to
markedly
restrict
all
or
almost
all
of
the
time
his
or
her
ability
to
perform
one
or
more
basic
activities
of
daily
living
even
using
the
appropriate
aids,
medication
or
therapy
for
the
years
claimed?
The
answer
Dr.
Vedova
indicated
on
this
form
was,
“No.”
In
a
second
certificate
dated
October
24th,
1994,
in
answer
to
question
number
12,
the
doctor
did
not
signify
either
yes
or
no,
but
made
a
question
mark
of
his
own
after
the
form
question.
In
this
October
24th,
1994
completed
form,
Dr.
Vedova
answered
the
relevant
form
questions
in
the
following
manner,
in
paragraph
3:
Does
your
patient
have
a
prolonged
impairment?
“Yes.”
Does
your
patient
have
a
severe
impairment?
“No.”
Do
the
effects
of
this
impairment
markedly
restrict
your
patient’s
ability
to
perform
one
or
more
basic
activities
of
living,
even
with
the
use
of
appropriate
aids,
assistance,
medication
and
therapy?
“No”.
He
indicated
no
problem
with
the
Appellant’s
vision,
speaking,
hearing,
walking,
bowel
and
bladder,
and
feeding
and
dressing.
Under
paragraph
10,
mental
functions,
he
wrote,
in
answer
to,
“Do
personal
care,
eating
and
dressing
without
supervision?”,
he
wrote
in,
“Needs
help
in
dressing.”
Subparagraph
118.3(l)(a.2)
of
the
Act
reads
in
part:
Where
(a)
an
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
mental
or
physical
impairment,
(a.2)
[and
where]
a
medical
doctor...has
certified
in
prescribed
form
that
the
individual
has
a
severe
and
prolonged...impairment
the
effects
of
which
are
such
that
the
individual’s
ability
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living
is
markedly
restricted...there
may
be
deducted
an
amount
determined....
and
a
formula
follows.
In
order
to
benefit
under
subsection
118.3,
a
medical
doctor
must
certify
in
prescribed
form
that
the
taxpayer
has
a
severe
and
prolonged
physical
impairment
markedly
restricting
his
ability
to
perform
a
basic
activity
of
daily
living.
While
the
Appellant
may
have
satisfied
me
on
the
evidence
presented
that
his
impairment
does
satisfy
the
criteria
in
section
118.4
and
in
section
118.3
of
the
Act,
the
medical
certificate
is
a
condition
that
has
to
be
met
before
given
further
consideration.
I
cannot
ignore
or
change
the
clear
words
of
the
Act.
The
medical
doctor
must
certify
in
prescribed
form.
Unfortunately,
the
Appellant
has
not
presented
such
a
certificate.
For
these
reasons,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content