The taxpayer suffered from severe chronic pain. On the advice of her doctor, she helped alleviate the pain by wintering with her husband in warm climates. She claimed medical expense tax credits in respect of her travel and meal expenses.
Woods J found that the facts were materially identical to a 2008 case, decided by Lemarre J, involving the same taxpayer, medical condition and treatment. Therefore, although the Minister identified a 2001 decision that would potentially undermine the taxpayer's METC claim, Woods J stated (at para. 15):
There would be nothing wrong with this if the reasons of Justice Lemarre were provided to me so that I could consider them. But they were not, and no explanation was provided for failing to provide a transcript of these reasons. I find this situation to be very unfair to the taxpayer. If Ms. Tallon is to be deprived of the benefit of the prior decision for a subsequent year, it is only fair to her that the Court give careful consideration to the reasons in the prior case. I was not able to do this.
It was inappropriate, especially in an informal procedure case, to order a subsequent hearing to review the prior decision. Therefore, the taxpayer's METC claims were allowed.