http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/110733/index.do 
Canada v. Tallon (July 2, 2015 – 2015 FCA 156, Trudel, Ryer (author), Rennie JJA). NB - Incorrectly indexed on FCA website as Tallong.
Précis: The taxpayer had a disability that required the replacement of major joints. She and her husband spent the winter months in warmer locations in order to reduce the pain from her condition. The Tax Court held that the travel expenses were medical expenses. The Federal Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. The appeal of the Crown was allowed with costs of $19,424.06 awarded to Ms. Tallon, presumably because this was an informal procedure appeal in the Tax Court.
Decision: The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the medical expense tax credit (METC) was not available simply for travel to warmer climates, not matter how sympathetic the surrounding medical facts:
[38] A pure textual interpretation of this paragraph does not clearly demonstrate that a medical service can only be obtained from a person or hospital who or which provides such services. However, the close proximity of this provision to paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act leads me to conclude that the clear textual interpretation of paragraph 118.2(2)(a), to that effect, should carry over and become the correct interpretation of the term “medical services” in paragraph 118.2(2)(g) of the Act.
[39] A purposive analysis of paragraph 118.2(2)(g) of the Act leads me to conclude that by enacting this provision, Parliament intended to provide fiscal support, through the METC, to Canadians who are required to travel from their home communities to other locations in order to access specialized medical services that are not available to them where they live. That said, the circumstances in which such fiscal support will be available have been carefully circumscribed by the limitations that are spelled out in this paragraph. Such limitations cannot be ignored or relaxed in the face of sympathetic circumstances.
…
[41] This purposive interpretation of paragraph 118.2(2)(g) supports my conclusion that the medical services contemplated by this provision must be provided to the patient by a person or hospital.
[42] The final usage of the term medical services in subsection 118.2(2) of the Act appears in paragraph (h) thereof. In my view, for substantially the same reasons given above, I conclude that medical services as used in that paragraph must also be obtained by the patient from a person or hospital.
[43] Thus, I conclude that because the salutary effects of the warm Thai and Indonesian climates were not provided to the Taxpayer by a person or hospital, those effects cannot constitute a medical service obtained by the Taxpayer, within the meaning of either of paragraphs 118.2(2)(g) or (h) of the Act.
[44] As a consequence of these interpretations, the Disallowed Expenses do not constitute Medical Expenses for the purposes of the METC.
VIII. DISPOSITION
[45] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal. As agreed by the parties, costs in the amount of $19,424.06 shall be payable by the Crown to the Taxpayer.