Calek v. Canada

Calek v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-01-17 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 20 File numbers A-38-02 Decision Content Date: 20030117 Docket: A-38-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 20 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: VILEM W. CALEK Applicant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 15, 2003. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 17, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20030117 Docket: A-38-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 20 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: VILEM W. CALEK Applicant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NADON J.A. [1] By his judicial review application, the applicant seeks an order setting aside a decision of Judge Hershfield of the Tax Court of Canada (the "judge"), dated November 2, 2001, in file 2000-3001(IT)I. [2] The issue before us is whether Judge Hershfield made any reviewable error in dismissing the applicant's appeal of the Minister's reassessment for the 1998 taxation year, in respect of which he had claimed credits for medical expenses under section 118.2 of the Income Tax Act (the "Act"), which the Minister denied. [3] We have not been persuaded that the judge made any error, of fact or of law, which would allow us to intervene. The judge gave serious consideration to the relevant facts and to all of the surrounding circumstances, and did not base his decision on any erroneous finding of fact, nor did he make any perverse or capricious finding. Further, in determining that the claimed expenses did not qualify as medical credits under sub-section 118.2(1) of the Act, the judge applied the correct statutory and jurisprudential tests. [4] The judge concluded, inter alia, that the applicant's daughter was not a dependent, as that term is defined in sub-section 118(6) of the Act. In concluding as he did, the judge relied on the decision of the Trial Division of this Court in The Queen v. Robichaud (1983), 37 DTC 5265 at 5267, where Marceau J. (as he then was) held that the word "support", as it appeared in former sub-section 109(1), now sub-section 118(6) of the Act, meant "being a source of subsistence, sustenance or living". [5] In the judge's view, and we see no error in this view on the evidence and the applicable law, the applicant's daughter was not a person who, during the 1998 taxation year, was dependent on the applicant for support. At the very least, this conclusion is not one which could be characterized as unreasonable. [6] As we have found no error in the judge's legal reasoning, nor in his assessment of the evidence, this judicial review application will be dismissed. There shall be no costs. "M. Nadon" J.A. "I agree. J. Richard C.J." "I agree. Gilles Létourneau J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-38-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: VILEM W. CALEK V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 15, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : NADON J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. DATED: JANUARY 17, 2003 APPEARANCES: Mr. Vilem Calek APPELLANT Ms. Angela Evans FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Vilem Calek APPELLANT Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada