Canada v. Title Estate

Canada v. Title Estate Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-04-05 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 106 File numbers A-196-00 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20010405 Docket: A-196-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 106 CORAM: ISAAC J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant (Respondent) - and - THE ESTATE OF HARRY TITLE Respondent (Appellant) Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, April 5, 2001 Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, April 5, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20010405 Docket: A-196-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 106 CORAM: ISAAC J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant (Respondent) - and - THE ESTATE OF HARRY TITLE Respondent (Appellant) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, April 5, 2001) SHARLOW J.A. The issue in this case is whether an amount paid by Mr. Harry Title to Forest Hill Community for himself and his spouse in respect of the 1996 taxation year was a medical expense within the meaning of paragraphs 118.2(2)(d) or (e) of the Income Tax Act. Both provisions require certification by an appropriately qualified person as to the condition of the patient who is the subject of the certificate, in this case Mr. Title and his spouse. Paragraph 118.2(2)(d) requires a certificate that the patient is "a person who, by reason of lack of normal mental capacity, is and in the foreseeable future will continue to be dependent on others for the patient's personal needs and care". Paragraph 118.2(2)(e) requires a certificate that the patient is "a person who, by reason of a physical or mental handicap, requires the equipment, facilities or personnel specially provided" (by the place to which the expense is paid) for the care or training of individuals suffering from that handicap. In this case the certificates for Mr. Title and Mrs. Title say this: This person requires a supervised setting since January 31, 1995 due to medical illness. This person requires a 24 hour companion. The Tax Court Judge accepted these certificates as sufficient for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(e). We must respectfully disagree with his conclusion on that point. In our view, a certificate under paragraph 118.2(2)(e) must at least specify the mental or physical handicap from which the patient suffers, and the equipment, facilities or personnel that the patient requires in order to obtain the care or training needed to deal with that handicap. The certificates in this case are simply too vague to meet that requirement. Similarly, the certificates are not specific enough for purposes of paragraph 118.2(2)(d), because they do not state that the patient lacks normal mental capacity. That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal in favour of the Crown. We prefer not to comment on any of the other arguments raised. This appeal will be allowed with costs. The judgment of the Tax Court will be set aside and the reassessment under appeal will be affirmed. "Karen R. Sharlow" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-196-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant (Respondent) - and - THE ESTATE OF HARRY TITLE Respondent (Appellant) DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. DATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001 APPEARANCES: Ms. Livia Singer and Ms. Carol Shirtliff-Hinds For the Appellant (Respondent) Mr. Ian MacInnis and Mr. Paul J. Matthews For the Respondent (Appellant) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Appellant (Respondent) Fogler, Rubinoff LLP Barristers & Solicitors Royal Trust Tower Toronto-Dominion Centre, Suite 4400 P.O. Box 95, Station Toronto Dom. Toronto, Ontario M5K 1G8 For the Respondent (Appellant) FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20010405 Docket: A-196-00 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant (Respondent) - and - THE ESTATE OF HARRY LITTLE Respondent (Appellant) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT