Eligible Relocation

The taxpayer was an Australian resident who moved from Australia to Canada in February 2016 to take up employment as a doctor, and became a Canadian resident at that time. Owen J confirmed the denial of her claim under s. 62 for $59,188 in moving expenses given that she was an Australian resident before the move, stating (at para 11):

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition of “eligible relocation” in subsection 248(1) … together require in clear and unambiguous terms that before the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada and that after the move the Appellant ordinarily resided at a residence in Canada. An exception to the “in Canada” requirement in paragraph (c) is provided only if at the time of the move the Appellant was “absent from but resident in Canada”. …

He also rejected the taxpayer’s submission that IT-178R3 was misleading respecting the “within Canada” requirement, noting (at para. 14) that it clearly was only addressing the situation where “an individual changes residences in Canada” – and, in any event, “information bulletins do not create estoppels” (para. 15).

The taxpayer underwent a "lateral transfer" within the same department, from an hourly CAM programmer to a salaried CAD/CAM developer. He reported to the same person and the terms of his existing employment agreement continued into the new position. Because of his expanded responsibilities, he moved more than 40 kilometers closer to work, incurring $31,188 in moving expenses.

Masse DJ upheld the disallowance of the taxpayer's moving expenses. Although acknowledging the contrary finding in Wunderlich, Masse DJ concluded (at para. 15):

I am of the view that Parliament has intentionally chosen to use the word "new" in the expression "new work location" ... . The expression "the new work location" appears several times in both subs. 62(1) and subs. 248(1) of the Act. Each word in an enactment must be given meaning. It cannot be concluded that the word "new" as used in these provisions of the Act are merely surplusage.

Hogan J found that the taxpayer's move to a smaller home was for personal reasons, and that he was unable to establish that he moved in order to continue working, as there were no changes in employment conditions.

The taxpayer, a teacher for the Toronto District Schoolboard, spent a summer in Ottawa working for their schoolboard. Bocock J found that his associated travel expenses were not deductible as an "eligible relocation," given that his customary mode of life had not changed - his family, house, and TDSB job were waiting for him back in Toronto at the end of the summer.

Favreau J found that the taxpayer's move in 2010, 70 kilometers closer to the place she worked since 1996, was not an eligible relocation because her place of employment could not reasonably be considered a "new work location." The case was distinguishable from Wunderlich because there was no compelling evidence that she had taken on new responsibilities (especially in that there was no change in her salary).

Lamarre J found that there was nothing in s. 62(1) that required that moving expenses be incurred in the year they are deducted rather than a prior year. Therefore, the taxpayer's expenses for moving his belongings to a friend's house in 2010 gave rise to a deduction in 2012 when he finally found employment.

The taxpayer lived in Toronto. He worked in Burlington beginning in 2004, was promoted to management in 2007, and moved to Oakville in 2008, 50 kilometers closer to his workplace than his Toronto home. Webb J found that the taxpayer's moving expenses were deductible as an eligible relocation, notwithstanding that the relocation occurred approximately four years after his employment commenced.

The term "new work location" originated when the Act required that the taxpayer cease to be employed at an old work location in order to deduct relocation expenses. Because that requirement was repealed, it is no longer reasonable to construe the phrase "new work location" as imposing a timeliness requirement in the definition of "eligible relocation" (paras. 10-11). Webb J stated (at para. 8):

It should also be noted that the same label "new work location" was also placed on the educational institution if the taxpayer was a student. This emphasizes the point that "new work location" is simply the name or the label that was placed on the particular location. The words used as part of this label (in particular new and work) should not be used to define the expression "new work location".

The taxpayer's relocation occurred "to enable" him to be employed at his workplace, because his promotion came with added responsibilities that made his previous commute unmanageable.

The taxpayer, a schoolbus driver, was laid off for July and August of each year and rehired in September. One year, she moved from her home 47 kilometers from her place of work to a home one kilometer from her workplace. Webb J. rejected the Minister's argument that the taxpayer's deduction should be denied because the move was not to a "new work location." In the definition of "eligible relocation," the term "new work location" is defined in clause (a)(i) as the location in Canada in which the relocation enables the taxpayer to work. The word "new" serves only to distinguish the "new work location" from the previous one. It does not impose an additional requirement that the work location be "new" in the sense of being recent, or "new" in the sense of being a place the taxpayer has never worked before.

The taxpayer moved from his house in Abbotsford B.C. to an apartment in Victoria in 2006 for health reasons, and from there to a Victoria house in 2007. In finding that the taxpayer did not "ordinarily reside" in the apartment, and hence that the move from the apartment was part of an eligible relocation from Abbotsford, Sheridan J. referred to the Thomson decision, and stated at para. 18:

Nothing about the way Mr. and Mrs. Myles conducted themselves while at the Victoria Flat was consistent with what had been their "settled routine" prior to the move to Victoria. They went from a spacious dwelling, full of furniture and effects, large enough to accommodate family, neighbours and pets to what was essentially a hotel room cum storage unit. ... So focussed were they on this goal [of finding an affordable permanent home close to work] that they invested no time in establishing themselves in either the Victoria Flat or the neighborhood, in general.

The route proposed by the Crown between the taxpayer's old residence and his new work location, which involved traveling on a busy six-lane highway, would not have satisfied the 40-kilometre test, whereas a route advanced by the taxpayer, which he claimed would have taken less time during the morning rush hour than the route proposed by the Crown, would have satisfied the 40-kilometre test. Given that the relevant test is not based on the route which takes the least amount of time but, rather, is based on the shortest normal route (with the route being proposed by the Crown being one that was frequently used by commuters), the taxpayer did not satisfy the "eligible relocation" 40-kilometre test.

The taxpayer was found not to have moved the residence at which he ordinarily resided from St. John, New Brunswick (where his family continued to stay at his home) to Alberta (where, with the exception of a "work holiday" in New Brunswick, he worked for the next few years) given (para. 24) that a taxpayer does not have "a settled ordinary routine of life in [a] new location" where "the taxpayer does not sever social and economic ties with the old location and leave behind all the other aspects of a normal and customary mode of life".

Bowman C.J. rejected the submission of the Crown (at para. 11) that distance for purposes of the 40 kilometre test should be determined by "a mechanical measurement of all possible routes" with "the shortest chosen, regardless of whether any reasonable person would follow such a route" and found for the taxpayer on the basis of a route that was realistic and reasonable.

When the taxpayer received a new position in Vancouver, he and his family moved from their Brampton home to an apartment there and then, 19 months later, purchased a house in Port Moody. In finding that the taxpayer no longer was ordinarily resident in Brampton at the time of the purchase of the Port Moody house, Miller J. noted that the family had severed significant attachments in Ontario, had moved all their belongings to the apartment, had moved drivers licences and health care coverages to British Columbia, made only occasional trips to Ontario during the 19 month period, established a new social life in British Columbia and had rented out the Brampton property. As the taxpayer thus had ceased at the end of the 19 month period to be ordinarily resident in Brampton, the deduction was not available for expenses of selling the Brampton home and purchasing the Port Moody home.

In March 1998 the taxpayer, following a promotion, moved from Calgary to a purchased home in Mississauga, and in December 1999 moved from the home in Mississauga to a home in Campbellville, which was further from his place work than the Mississauga home. In finding that the taxpayer was entitled to deduct the costs of the move from Mississauga to Campbellville (including the commission paid on the sale of his Mississauga home) in addition to those incurred on the move from Calgary to Mississauga, McArthur T.C.J. accepted the taxpayer's position that he never regarded the Mississauga home as his ordinary residence and only went there as a temporary place to live.

In considering whether there is a time limit on an "eligible relocation," Taylor J. stated:

I was satisfied from the evidence and testimony that there were good reasons for which the taxpayer delayed his move from Winnipeg to Beausejour - illness, lack of housing in Beausejour, inactive real estate selling market in Winnipeg, etc. - but that is probably irrelevant. In my opinion, the taxpayer and he alone is left to determine the timing of the move, and the costs associated with the move, and no time limit is expressed by the wording of the Act. While clearly five years is an unusually long period of time between change of work locale and the move, that cannot be put in issue - the respondent has no basis upon which to conclude... that there is some time frame that is "reasonable" and another that is unreasonable.