In a September 17, 2019 Tax Court of Canada case (Chen vs. H.M.Q., 2018-4817(IT)I), at issue was whether a medical procedure to harvest and store stem cells from the taxpayer’s son’s umbilical cord was prescribed by a medical practitioner, such that the $5,712 cost was eligible for the medical expense tax credit. The taxpayer alleged that, due to health history in the family, her obstetrician verbally recommended this procedure to assist with future possible health issues. No evidence was provided to support this assertion. However, the taxpayer did receive a letter 17 months after the procedure from her family doctor stating that the child’s parents had performed this procedure to assist with possible illness in the future and that all patients are advised to do this.

contemporaneous documentation

Taxpayer loses
The Court found that the letter from the family doctor was a retrospective descriptive record of what the taxpayer did, why and on what basis. It did not connect the procedure as a treatment of illness through a prescribed course of action by the medical practitioner, but endorsed the taxpayer’s decision after the fact.

Further, the Court noted that the credit for medical treatments and therapies prescribed to treat present and future ailments (Paragraph 118.2(2)(o)) was not intended to allow a benefit for generic and undiagnosed population-wide illness and disease.