In finding that the home office expenses of a school superintendant were deductible, Webb J stated (at para. 30):
The Appellant also testified, and I accept his testimony, that at least once a week he met persons at the office in his home and he testified that the area in which the office was located in his house was used exclusively for employment purposes. This office was not used for any other purpose. Both the Appellant and Mr. Legere testified that the Appellant made several calls from his home in the evenings and on weekends. In the cases of Vanka v. Her Majesty the Queen [2001] 4 C.T.C. 2832 and Ryan v. Her Majesty the Queen [2006] 3 C.T.C. 2153, this Court has found that meetings by telephone are sufficient for the purposes of subparagraph 18(12)(a)(ii) which is indistinguishable from subparagraph 8(13)(a)(ii) in relation to the requirement that the work space be used on a regular and continuous basis for meetings and therefore I find that the requirements of subparagraph 8(13)(a)(ii) have been met by the Appellant.