The taxpayer was hired as an associate professor in Regina but maintained his business in Winnipeg of hosting, organizing and promoting aboriginal education conferences. The Minister denied several the taxpayer's claims for meal and travel expenses.
Bocock J. affirmed the Minister's decision to disallow the majority of the taxpayer's claimed meal expenses. The taxpayer hired his wife as a consultant, and the lion's share of meal expenses was for meals involving only the two of them. The Minister had conceded the remaining meal expenses, subject to the 50% rule.
The taxpayer's claim for travel expenses between Regina and Winnipeg was novel in that Bocock J. found that neither the taxpayer's decision to live in Regina nor his decision to keep his consulting business in Winnipeg were made for personal reasons. The taxpayer was required to live in Regina to continue his employment, but it was also necessary to keep his business in Winnipeg where the pertinent business contacts and conferences were located. Bocock J. found that he was bound by Hogg to deny travel expenses from Regina to the taxpayer's Winnipeg office, but allowed travel expenses for the purpose of chairing, supervising or hosting conferences, which he noted were located in Winnipeg "not at the personal choice of the Appellant but for the convenience of, and attractiveness to, the attendees."