Citation: 2004TCC43

Date: 20040126

Docket: 2003-654(IT)I

BETWEEN:

ELEANOR S. BOUSFIELD,

Appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: The Appellant herself

Counsel for the Respondent: Jocelyn Espejo Clarke

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McArthur J.

[1]      The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant may include the amount of $2,115.13 in medical expenses in determining her medical expense credit for the 2000 taxation year. A portion of this amount and specifically, $76.53, was a dental expense that is allowed as a medical expense credit because the Appellant proved that she in fact paid that amount. The remaining amount in question of approximately $2,040 was spent for reflexology, herbs, vitamins and other similar substances.

[2]      The position of the Minister of National Revenue is that no amount claimed as a cost for reflexology was paid to a medical practitioner as described in subsection 118.4(2) of the Income Tax Act, and as required by paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act. Also, the cost of herbs, vitamins and other similar substances were not amounts paid for drugs or medications prescribed by a medical practitioner and recorded by a pharmacist and are not medical expenses described in paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act.

[3]      The Appellant and her husband have lived and farmed in Milton, Ontario for many years. She has suffered from many ailments since youth. She has had kidney inflammation and is left with one and one-half kidneys. She suffered from chronic headaches and bronchitis. Doctors prescribed drugs including Tylenol which she states destroys the liver and can cause death. She states antibiotics she was prescribed destroy health bacteria. She has found great relief in reflexology and acupressure treatments along with vitamins. She is extremely well informed and presented a strong case in support of homeopathic and naturopathic treatments. She obviously studied the benefits of reflexology and natural vitamins. She has derived great benefits from these natural treatments. She has used the self-help method intelligently and found a successful alternative method to obtain relief from her ailments.

[4]      Nonetheless, the herbal preparations, vitamins and other things she takes are not prescribed by a medical practitioner and are not recorded by a pharmacist. This is required criteria and is not met. I have to interpret and apply the law as it is written in the legislation.

[5]      I accept the Appellant's evidence that alternative medicines and homeopathic treatment, such as reflexology, are being used more and more. In paragraph 118.2(2)(n) of the Act, our regulators require that certain medications be prescribed by a medical practitioner because there is little control on the labelling and sale of alternative medicines. That will come sooner or later. The government, at some point, will amend the Act because homeopathic medicines and alternative forms of treatment are so prevalent. These alternative methods have worked for the Appellant but clearly, I am not able to give her the relief she seeks. My conclusion is supported by the Federal Court of Appeal in Dunn v. The Queen, 2003 DTC 5029. The same reasoning applies to the Appellant's claimed expenses for reflexology. The Act does not recognize a reflexologist.

[6]      Subsection 118.4(2) sets out those persons included as medical practitioners and persons authorized to practice as such for the purpose of section 118.2. They include audiologist, dentist, medical doctor, medical practitioner, nurse, occupational therapist, optometrist, pharmacist or psychologist. To be entitled to a medical tax credit under paragraph 118.2(2)(a), among other things, an individual must have paid an amount to a medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital. As stated, a reflexologist is not a medical practitioner described in subsection 118.4(2) as required by paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act.

[7]      The Appellant does not meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act and her appeal is dismissed, with the exception of the amount of $76.53 in dental expenses paid by the Appellant.

Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 26th day of January, 2004.

"C.H. McArthur"

J.T.C.C.

CITATION:

2004TCC43

COURT FILE NO.:

2003-654(IT)I

STYLE OF CAUSE:

Eleanor S. Bousfield and Her Majesty the Queen

PLACE OF HEARING:

Hamilton, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:

October 21, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

The Honourable Justice C.H. McArthur

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

October 30, 2003

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

The Appellant herself

Counsel for the Respondent:

Jocelyn Espejo Clarke

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For the Appellant:

Name:

N/A

Firm:

N/A

For the Respondent:

Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Canada