## Facts

- Elizabeth C. Symes, a Toronto lawyer and law-firm partner, practised full-time from 1982–1985 while raising children.
- To enable her to work, she employed a nanny and paid wages exceeding $10,000 per year.
- Symes claimed the nanny’s wages as deductible business expenses on her personal income tax returns.
- The Minister reassessed 1982–1985 and disallowed the business-expense deductions, treating the wages as non-deductible “personal or living expenses.”
- The Minister instead allowed only limited child-care expense deductions under the Income Tax Act’s specific child-care provision, subject to annual caps.
- Symes challenged (1) the tax characterization and (2) the constitutionality of limiting relief to the capped child-care deduction, alleging adverse effects on women under Charter equality rights.
- The trial court allowed the business-expense deduction; the appellate court reversed; the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Symes’s appeal, with two justices dissenting.

## Issues

1. Whether wages paid to a nanny for child care are deductible as business expenses incurred to earn income, or are “personal or living expenses” deductible only (if at all) under the Act’s specific child-care deduction provision.
2. Whether restricting child-care cost relief to the capped statutory deduction, and refusing business-expense treatment, infringes equality rights under Charter s. 15(1) due to disproportionate impact on women.

## Decision

- Appeal dismissed; the appellate judgment was affirmed.
- The nanny’s wages were child-care expenses governed exclusively by the Act’s specific child-care deduction provision, not deductible as general business expenses.
- The expenses were properly treated as “personal or living expenses” for purposes of the general deduction limits.
- No Charter s. 15(1) violation was established; the evidentiary record did not prove discriminatory impact attributable to sex.
- Because no s. 15(1) breach was found, the Court did not reach Charter s. 1 justification.
- Two justices dissented, favoring a more contextual equality analysis and a closer connection between child-care costs and income earning for self-employed professionals.

## Legal Principles

- A taxpayer may deduct only expenses incurred to earn income from a business, subject to statutory limits barring “personal or living expenses.”
- Where Parliament creates a specific and limited deduction regime for a defined type of expense (here, child care), the scheme indicates legislative intent to control that subject through the specific provision rather than the general business-expense rule.
- An expense does not become a deductible business expense merely because it is a practical precondition to working; child care is ordinarily classified as personal living cost unless the statute provides otherwise.
- A Charter equality claim based on adverse effects requires persuasive evidence that the statutory rule has a discriminatory impact linked to an enumerated or analogous ground (here, sex), not merely differential outcomes associated with factors such as income level or family arrangements.
- Facially neutral tax provisions are not unconstitutional absent proof that they impose a discriminatory burden that perpetuates disadvantage on a protected group.

## Conclusion

The Court held that nanny wages for child care could not be deducted as business expenses and were deductible only within the capped child-care deduction scheme, and it rejected the equality challenge because the claimant did not prove discriminatory adverse effects attributable to sex.


Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695 (Can. 1993)