Templeton v. Canada
T-2405-88
Campbell J.
4/4/97
6 pp.
Appeal from reassessment disallowing moving expense deduction-Move from principal residence in Penetanguishene, and secondary residence in Toronto, to Don Mills where new residence contained office used in carrying out business as author and inventor-Distance between Penetanguishene and Don Mills 155 kilometres-Appeal brought to F.C.T.D. rather than Tax Court to effectively reverse unfavourable Tax Court decision of Bracken v. Minister of National Revenue (1984), 84 DTC 1814, where Act, s. 62(1) interpreted as requiring four separate elements: old work location, new work location, old residence and new residence-Appeal allowed-Giannakopoulos v. M.N.R., [1995] 3 F.C. 294 (C.A.) applied-Realistic, logical and in context with reality of Canadian life to understand person's residence might very well be same as work location, as herein-Bracken interpretation unrealistic, illogical and non-contextual, and, therefore, wrong in law-Taxpayer entitled to moving expenses-Uncommon patience which taxpayer endured in rectifying manifest error in Bracken special reason to award him costs-Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, s. 62(1).