Watson
D.J.T.C.:
Well,
this
Court
is
a
Court
that
does
not
deal
in
equity.
It
is
a
Court
that
must
apply
the
Income
Tax
Act
as
it
is
written.
In
fact,
when
the
Court
does
not
do
it,
the
counsel
for
the
Minister
appeals
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
and
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
wonders
if
the
trial
court
knows
something
that
they
don’t
know.
In
other
words,
where
there
is
an
unfairness
and
this
Court
is
not
in
a
position
to
correct
unfairness,
unless
it
is
authorized
by
the
Income
Tax
Act.
And
invariably,
in
these
type
of
cases,
there
is
a
lot
of
sympathy
on
the
part
of
the
Court
but
that
does
not
help
the
appellant
too
much.
But
the
Court,
in
other
words,
must
apply
the
Income
Tax
Act
and,
as
I
said
earlier
in
that
other
case,
everyone
is
presumed
to
know
the
contents.
And,
right
away,
that
is
an
unfairness
because
how
does
everybody
in
Canada
understand
this.
And
yet
there
is
a
presumption
that
they
do.
So
when
it
comes
to
settling
matters
that
come
within
the
Income
Tax
Act,
the
Court
must
apply
the
plain
and
ordinary
words
of
the
Act.
Even
though
it
may,
in
certain
circumstances,
create
for
an
individual
something
that
is
unfair
because
the
laws
occur
as
a
result
of
this
and
a
person
tries
to
deduct
it
or
absorb
the
loss
in
some
way
or
lessen
or
soften
the
loss
in
some
way.
But,
unfortunately,
as
Mr.
Justice
Cullen
has
stated
in
the
case
quoted
by
counsel
for
the
Minster,
deductions
from
employment
income
are
set
out
in
the
Act
quite
frankly.
In
the
light
of
the
testimony
that
I
had
this
morning,
the
admissions
and
the
case
law
and
the
sections
of
the
Act
that
apply,
I
am
satisfied
that
the
appellant
has
not
succeeded
in
his
onus
of
establishing,
on
a
balance
of
probabilities,
that
the
Minister’s
assessment
for
the
1990
taxation
year
was
ill
founded
in
fact
and
in
law.
Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content