The appellant, a self-employed lawyer, sought to deduct nanny wages as business expenses rather than under the capped child care deduction in the Income Tax Act.
The majority held that, although child care expenses raise difficult questions under general business-expense principles, s. 63 specifically and comprehensively addresses child care costs incurred to enable a taxpayer to carry on a business, and therefore precludes deduction under ss. 9 and 18.
The majority further held that the appellant failed to prove that s. 63 drew a distinction based on sex for the purposes of s. 15(1) of the Charter, because the evidentiary record established disproportionate social burdens of child care on women but not disproportionate payment of child care expenses.
The appeal was dismissed, with two judges dissenting on both statutory interpretation and equality analysis.
