http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72941/index.do 
Gibson v. The Queen (July 23, 2014 – 2014 TCC 236 ) was a decision holding that the taxpayer was entitled to a disability tax credit because of her severe chronic fatigue syndrome.
[1] Joan Gibson is a retired psychologist who was diagnosed many years ago with severe chronic fatigue syndrome. In 2012, Ms. Gibson made an application for the disability tax credit under the
Income Tax Act, which was denied by notice of determination dated June 14, 2013. The appeal relates to this determination.
[2] Ms. Gibson represented herself at the hearing and was the only witness. It was clear at the hearing that Ms. Gibson’s disability quite severely hampered her ability to conduct this appeal.
[3] Counsel for the Crown dealt with this situation commendably. Instead of conducting a lengthy cross-examination of Ms. Gibson, counsel relied on the doctors’ certificates provided to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). There were four such documents.
(a) A certificate dated February 27, 2012 by Ms. Gibson’s family doctor, Dr. Nicholas J. Morison (Exhibit R-1). This certificate did not support Ms. Gibson’s position and was not relied on by either party. It will not be discussed further.
(b) A certificate dated March 18, 2013 from a psychiatrist, Dr. Flor-Henry (Exhibit R-2).
(c) A form by Dr. Flor-Henry dated June 4, 2013, which was requested by the CRA (Exhibit R-3).
(d) A modified version of the above form by Dr. Flor-Henry dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit R-4).
The Crown argued that the evidence did not evidence a severe impairment:
[18] Although Dr. Flor-Henry’s certificate was a positive certificate for purposes of the legislation, it failed to provide details as to the effects of the impairment. This is required information in the prescribed form and would assist the CRA in verifying that the legislative requirements were satisfied.
[19] Since these details were not provided, the CRA requested that Dr. Flor-Henry fill out another check-the-box form. The evidence from Ms. Gibson was that Dr. Flor-Henry was not happy that the CRA wanted more information. In any event, the answers given by Dr. Flor-Henry in the second form are not helpful to Ms. Gibson (Exhibit R-3). In general, they paint a picture of someone who is functioning well except during “periods of exacerbation or in stressful situations.” This seems to suggest that Ms. Gibson is not severely impaired all or substantially all of the time, as required.
[20] This is not the end of the matter, however, because Dr. Flor-Henry subsequently filed an amended form (Exhibit R-4). In it, Dr. Flor-Henry changed his answers to two questions and indicated that Ms. Gibson had severe impairment all or substantially all of the time with respect to judgment and ability to plan daily activities.
[21] The Crown suggests that impairments only with respect to judgment and planning daily activities are not sufficient impairments to qualify for the disability tax credit.
The court rejected the Crown’s position and allowed the appeal:
[27] In this case, a highly-qualified medical specialist stated an opinion that Ms. Gibson has a disability that severely impacts her ability to perform mental functions necessary for every day life. The disability is present all or substantially all of the time. In my view, the opinions expressed in the forms sent by Dr. Flor-Henry adequately establish that Ms. Gibson satisfies the legislative requirements for the disability tax credit.
[28] I would also observe that:
(a) Ms. Gibson has been diagnosed with a severe form of chronic fatigue, which suggests that her symptoms are particularly debilitating;
(b) Ms. Gibson did not call Dr. Flor-Henry to testify, but this should generally not be necessary unless the medical practitioner has not given a positive certificate;
(c) the severity of Ms. Gibson’s disability was evident at the hearing; and
(d) the disability tax credit provisions should be interpreted in a compassionate manner.
[29] For these reasons, the appeal will be allowed.