Renko v. Canada (Attorney General)

Renko v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-06-02
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 251
File numbers
A-424-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030602
Docket: A-424-02
A-425-02
A-426-02
A-427-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 251
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
A-424-02
BETWEEN:
DEBORAH RENKO
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-425-02
BETWEEN:
GARY FORSYTH
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-426-02
BETWEEN:
DARLENE CRAWFORD
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-427-02
BETWEEN:
JOHN STEWART
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 2, 2003.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 2, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
CONCURRING REASONS BY:
CONCURRING REASONS IN RESULT ONLY BY:
Date: 20030602
Docket: A-424-02
A-425-02
A-426-02
A-427-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 251
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
A-424-02
BETWEEN:
DEBORAH RENKO
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-425-02
BETWEEN:
GARY FORSYTH
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-426-02
BETWEEN:
DARLENE CRAWFORD
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
A-427-02
BETWEEN:
JOHN STEWART
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 2, 2003)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] In spite of the spirited argument of counsel for the applicants, we have not been persuaded that Bowie J. erred in dismissing the applicants' appeals to the Tax Court. The context of paragraph 8(1)(g) of the Income Tax Act, which requires that employees be away from their municipality or metropolitan area, necessarily implies that "meals and lodging" must be read conjunctively. The deduction contemplated is only available when there are disbursements for both meals and lodging.
[2] We would dismiss the applications with costs of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements to the respondent.
(Sgd.) "Marshall E. Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-424-02, A-425-02, A-426-02, A-427-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Deborah Renko v. The Attorney General of Canada
Gary Forsyth v. The Attorney General of Canada
Darlene Crawford v. The Attorney General of Canada
John Stewart v. The Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver
DATE OF HEARING: June 2, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : LINDEN, ROTHSTEIN, SEXTON JJ.A.
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
DATED: June 2, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. J. Andre Rachert FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Lisa MacDonell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dwyer Tax Lawyers FOR THE APPLICANT
(Victoria, BC)
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada