The taxpayer's husband had Parkinson's disease, and was at risk of falling on the carpeted floors. Accordingly, the taxpayer replaced the carpeting with laminate flooring.
Pizzitelli J found that s. (l.2) did not apply to make the related expenses non-creditable. The laminated floors do not generally represent an increase in value over carpeted floors. As to (l.2)(ii), he found it would be more consistent with Parliament's intention to find that the floor installation would not normally be incurred by persons with normal physical development. He stated (at para. 11):
The Budget Papers and explanatory notes make it clear the two conditions were inserted to ensure the taxpayer was not subsidizing personal consumption and personal choices. I agree with the Appellant that if her only choice was to install low-cost laminate floors to deal with her husband's condition, then there is no element of personal consumption or choice here that the taxpayer is being asked to fund.