January 27, 1992
General Audit Services Personal and General
Technical Support Division Section
K.R. Warren, Acting Director A. Humenuk
(613)957-2134
Attention: Ron B. Boicey
920030
Subject: Employment Benefit from Employer Provided Automobile
As a result of a recent query from Treasury Board, we have had an opportunity to review our position concerning the nature of travel between home and work with respect to employees who are required to provide care and maintenance of a guard dog in their homes.
In our memorandum to you of March 6, 1991, we stated that we were not prepared to accept as a precedent, the statements made by the Federal Court of Appeal in the decision of Hoedel v the Queen 86 DTC 6535, concerning the nature of the travel between home and the normal place of work.
Upon further review we realize that we cannot justify upholding that position in light of the fact that we did not seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. In addition, we feel that the precedential value of this case can be limited to other dog handlers and that our basic position that travel between home and work is personal is maintained.
We enclose a copy of the letter we sent to Mr. R. Andrews of the Treasury Board on this subject.
B.W. DathDirectorBusiness and General DivisionRulings DirectorateLegislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs Branch