St-Onge J.T.C.C.: — The appeal of Audrey Wilson was heard on the 27th of September 1995 in the City of Vancouver, and the issue is whether she is allowed to claim a disability deduction in her 1992-93 taxation years. In reassessing the appellant the Minister made the following assumptions of fact (a) the appellant has rheumatoid arthritis and (b) the impairment did not cause appellant to be markedly restricted in the basic activity of daily living.
At the hearing she testified that she was not able to walk more than 100 metres because of her rheumatoid arthritis and had constant severe pains in her feet. Upon cross-examination she stated that in 1992 and 1993 she was living in an apartment with her husband who works all the time that her mother did the housekeeping and that she did not use crutches or a cane. In June 1992 she was on an exercise program during which they did some work on her hand.
She admitted that if she leave the house for more than an hour such as to go to do shopping she has to rest on her return; that her hips and knees are normal; ankles and feet are thickened and tender but not restricted; that she certainly will be better with a more supportive and appropriate pair of shoes, and she was provided with them; that she was not able to walk more than 20 metres without the assistance of her husband or a cane.
Her husband testified that she could walk to a grocery store but she was very restricted in that activity. Dr. Sutherland testified as an expert witness. She knows a lot about this disease being a member of a group that review files for disability credit. She explained that Dr. Patterson had given a certificate in which it was mentioned that the appellant was not able to control her elimination functions.
Dr. Patterson had to correct her certificate in a letter dated, February 13, 1995.
Audrey Wilson cannot walk more than 100 metres without the assistance of her husband or a cane. She is not confined to a bed or wheelchair at all times. She is able to walk for 25 metres, then rest for one minute, and then walk again. She is able to control her elimination functions. I was in error in completing the form in this regard.
She also stated that the appellant should walk with a light cane; that she could walk enough to do the basic activities of daily living.
Upon cross-examination she was asked why with a light cane and the answer was because the appellant cannot lift more than seven pounds. She also explained that with proper shoes and medication inflammation goes out; it is less painful and the appellant would be able to walk much better.
Counsel for the respondent argued that to get the deduction the appellant has to fulfill the condition of section 118.4 which read as follows:
118.4(1) Nature of impairment. - For the purposes of this subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection,
(a) an impairment is prolonged where is has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months;
(b) an individual’s ability to perform a b basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living;
(c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means
(i) perceiving, thinking and remembering,
(ii) feeding and dressing oneself,
(iii) speaking as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual,
(iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual,
(v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or
(vi) walking; and
(d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living.
Walking is the activity that should be examined and the evidence has shown that she was able to walk enough to perform the basic activities for daily living. The fact that she could not go to work should not be taken into consideration because of paragraph 18.4(d).
As may be seen in the evidence, the appellant was not markedly restricted and was able to walk to perform the basic activity of daily living, consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.