The taxpayer, who was responsible for the safety and security of employees of the City of Ottawa at its numerous properties, was required to use his automobile in travelling from his regular office at City Hall to various City-owned sites, or on an emergency basis, directly to a site from his home. He received a per-kilometre allowance for travel between the office and such sites, but not for travel for him between his home and City Hall. In reassessing him, Revenue accepted the principle that he was entitled to deduct his automobile expenses for travel between his home and a work site that was not City Hall but denied the claim for automobile costs incurred for travel between his home and City Hall.
In affirming this reassessment, Rip T.C.J. noted (at p. 2414) that "the words '... incurred in the performance of ... employment' refer to automobile expenses incurred by the employee while providing services under the employment contract" and that a person could not be deemed to be "travelling in the course of the office or employment" unless the travel actually involved the performance of some service as compared to simply getting oneself to the place of work. Finally, there was no evidence that cast any doubt that the allowance paid was not reasonable.