Date: 19990623
Docket: 98-1709-IT-I
BETWEEN:
STEVEN W. NELSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Reasons for Judgment
Brulé, J.T.C.C.
[1] This is an appeal by Steven W. Nelson, the appellant. He has been denied by Revenue Canada a deduction for the equivalent to spouse for the 1996 taxation year.
Facts
[2] These are not in dispute. The appellant and his former wife were divorced with each party taking into custody one of two children. The appellant was denied equal treatment as was received by the wife for the one child in his custody under subsection 118(5) of the Income Tax Act. He is claiming discrimination.
Analysis
[3] While the appellant is claiming discrimination he does not seem to be onside with the legislation. The Parliament of Canada, it was said by Sopinka J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Egan and Nesbit and Her Majesty the Queen, that "the proper balance was struck by Parliament in providing financial assistance to those who were shown to be in the greatest need of assistance". The present case, it was argued by the appellant, infringes subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but Cory, J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of The Queen et al. v. Thibaudeau, 95 DTC 5273, indicated that the appellant's position, while it may be discriminating, was however saved under section 1 of the Charter. In addition to the Egan case, above, the Court was made aware of the case of Thibaudeau (supra) which in its decision (not unanimous) involved roughly the same facts. The Court found that this was not discriminating and dismissed the appeal.
[4] In addition to pleading there was no discrimination in this case, counsel for the respondent offered to the Court the following cases: Schachtschneider v. The Queen, 93 DTC 5298 and Werring v. The Queen, 97 DTC 3290.
[5] In the present case this Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a personal credit and a deduction under section 118 of the Income Tax Act.
[6] The Tax Court follows the rule of the law and cannot help the appellant in a plea of discrimination. The place to go is to the Parliament of Canada to seek an amendment to the law. In the meantime the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of June 1999.
|
"J.A. Brulé" |
J.T.C.C.COURT FILE NO.: 98-1709(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: Steven W. Nelson & Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: May 18, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: the Honourable Judge J.A. Brulé
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 23, 1999
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: C. Ward
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the Respondent: Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
98-1709(IT)I
BETWEEN:
STEVEN W. NELSON,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
Appeal heard on May 18, 1999, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by
the Honourable Judge J.A. Brulé
Appearances
For the Appellant: The Appellant himself
Counsel for the Respondent: C. Ward
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the assessment made under the Income Tax Act for the 1996 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 23rd day of June 1999.
|
"J.A. Brulé" |
J.T.C.C.