Gorgis – Tax Court of Canada finds that the new housing rebate was available for an individual who split his time between 3 locations

The appellant (Gorgis) acquired a new house in Caledon East, Ontario in January 2019 at about the same time he was establishing a Toronto body shop (“Green Apple”), stayed there two to four nights a week and stayed most of the balance of the nights in a bed at Green Apple, or on a couch or a brother’s bed at his siblings’ house in Toronto. He did not move in a lot of belongings – but he did not have a lot. In August 2020, he leased out the balance of the house to tenants, but continued to live in the basement thereafter.

Cook J found that this use pattern was sufficient for Gorgis to have satisfied the new housing rebate requirement in s. 254(2)(g)(i), which relevantly required Gorgis to have been the first occupant of the house “as a place of residence.”

Cook J also found that there was sufficient corroboration of Gorgis’ testimony that his intention was to acquire the house as his “primary place of residence,” as required by s. 254(2)(b). Gorgis was entitled to the new housing rebate.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Gorgis v. The King, 2024 TCC 109 under s. 254(2)(g)(i).