Accessing the DTC should not be a crap shoot.

And as far as the government’s over-zealous approach to cut costs, it would only get worse. In fact, we hadn’t seen anything yet. As distressing as it was to see even more Canadians with disabilities denied the DTC on questionable grounds, no one was prepared for the unprecedented action by the CRA to thwart justice by closing the doors to professional and legal assistance to those who wished to dispute a decision rejecting their claim.

How did it ever come to this?

Like employees of heartless insurance companies following orders, civil servants, with no medical training, were once again sending form letters rejecting claims without providing a relevant explanation for their decisions. That’s hardly surprising since there has always been a serious lack of literacy among assessors, as far as interpreting the information provided by doctors and other health practitioners completing the application forms and follow-up questionnaires. To make matters worse, the CRA staff has unfettered discretionary power to say “No” to thousands of legitimate claims regardless of the medical evidence. And why would they do that? Why indeed?  And yet, the facts speak for themselves. It’s no secret among tax lawyers that the CRA has always counted on a tax system too complicated or expensive for most people to appeal a bad decision. 

It was even more egregious when the CRA denied the DTC to Barbara Cochrane when there was no reason to do so. Despite her disability, she found the courage to fight back, and her case underlines how difficult it has become for people living with a mental illness to access justice. Although Ms. Cochrane was eligible for the DTC in 2010, she was denied the tax credit in 2016 when asked to reapply even though the two claims were identical and completed by the same doctor. In Cochrane v. The Queen 2017, Judge Bruce Russell recognized that Ms. Cochrane met the legal test for “all or substantially all of the time” due to her severe depression and anxiety. He accepted her argument that, “copying of the earlier certificate was done by Dr. MacDonald in a quest for administrative expediency in view of unchanged circumstances.” Judge Russell noted that there was no reason for the assessor to reject a claim that had been previously allowed.  

Needless to say, there was more work to be done to level the playing field for people severely impaired in their mental functions.