See More:
https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/421861/index.do
Chen v. The Queen (September 17, 2019 – 2019 TCC 192, Bocock J.).
Précis: The taxpayer sought a medical expense credit of $5,720 for the cost of harvesting and storing stem/cord cells from the birth of her child. The Tax Court denied the claim on the basis that the taxpayer adduced no evidence that the procedure was done on the advice of the taxpayer’s obstetrician.
Decision: The taxpayer did not adduce any medical evidence other than a letter from her family doctor dated several months after the birth of the child. In disallowing the claim the Tax Court relied upon the 2014 Tax Court decision in Shapiro blogged earlier on this site. In summary there was simply not enough evidence to support the claim:
[14] From the perspective of common sense and Shapiro, best practices are not captured within the ambit of paragraph 118.2(2)(o). The provision creates a deduction for medical expenses incurred by a taxpayer for medical treatments and therapies prescribed to treat that taxpayer’s present and future ailments. It is not intended to create a deduction for generic and undiagnosed population-wide illness and disease. The 2017 letter, more likely than not, refers to just such a basis for the expenditure. To reiterate, its date, some 17 months after the procedure and its language, descriptive rather than directive, cannot provide evidence of a medical prescription undertaken by the Appellant in 2016.
[15] The only other “evidence” to be weighed by the Court is the submitted verbally communicated physician “directive” expressed in advance or at the time of the stem cell harvest. There was no evidence, aside from the assertion by the Appellant’s husband that it was said, of its content, specificity or effect at the time it was made. The obstetrician did not testify. The clinical notes were not produced. Again, there is not observable evidence before the Court of a medical practitioner having directed the prescribed procedure before or even near the time it was completed.
As a result the appeal was dismissed, but without costs (it was an informal procedure appeal).
http://ruetersllp.com/portfolio_page/william-i-innes/
http://ruetersllp.com/