The Tax Court had erred in finding that vitamins, herbs and organic foods that had been prescribed by a physician and purchased off the shelf by the taxpayer qualified and that the words "recorded by a pharmacist" should be ignored. Sharlow J.A. stated (at p. 6031) that "it is reasonable to infer that the recording requirement in paragraph 118.2(2)(n) is intended to ensure that tax relief is not available for the cost of medications purchased off the shelf" and that she could not "accept the suggestion that, in the case of a medication that is prescribed by a physician but is purchased at a pharmacy off the shelf, a sales slip or invoice from the pharmacist would be a sufficient 'recording' to meet the statutory requirement".
Note
followed in Bekker v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 6404, 2004 FCA 186
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
333598
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Ray</em></strong>, 2004 DTC 6028, 2004 FCA 1 (followed in <em>Bekker v. The Queen</em>, 2004 DTC 6404, 2004 FCA 186)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>The Queen v. Ray</em></strong>, 2004 DTC 6028, 2004 FCA 1 (followed in <em>Bekker v. The Queen</em>, 2004 DTC 6404, 2004 FCA 186)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": ""
}