https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/235750/index.do
Vrantsidis v. The Queen (October 5, 2017 – 2017 TCC 204, Favreau J.).
Précis: The taxpayer sought a disability tax credit (DTC) in respect of her adult (19 years old) son who was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a learning disability. CRA denied the DTC and the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court. The Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the taxpayer’s son did not meet the tests of a disability that “markedly restrict[s] his ability to perform mental functions necessary for everyday life, all or substantially all of the time” [para. 13]. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The sole issue before the Court was whether the disability of the taxpayer’s son was sufficiently severe to entitle her to a DTC. In a nutshell the Court found that his disability, while serious, did not restrict his day to day activities in a manner sufficient to qualify for the DTC:
[13] Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that Jon−Douglas has one or more severe and prolonged mental or physical impairments whose effects are such as to markedly restrict his ability to perform mental functions necessary for everyday life, all or substantially all of the time.
[14] Jon-Douglas graduated from Grade 12 on time. He has a part-time job, plays guitar and video games, is enrolled in a music and digital media academic program and is taking driving lessons. He has no vision, speaking, hearing, walking, eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), feeding and dressing impairment. His functioning has much improved with the prescribed medications.
[15] Jon-Douglas and his mother have developed strategies to alleviate his difficulty remembering things or processing information by way of spending more time on his studies and by posting notes or lists of things to do.
[16] In the circumstances, the effects of Jon-Douglas’ ADHD are not severe enough to meet the meaning of “markedly restricted” required to qualify for the DTC.
As a result the appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.