http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72956/index.do 
Dueck v. The Queen (June 4, 2014 – 2014 TCC 187 ) was a case involving the taxpayer’s claim to deduct moving expenses as an “eligible relocation” in connection with his employment. The taxpayer had moved from a larger property to a smaller one closer to his place of employment but the circumstances of his employment remained the same. His evidence was that the move was necessitated by his health in that he could no longer both work and maintain the larger property. The respondent maintained that the move was not an eligible relocation since there were no changes in the circumstances of the appellant’s employment:
[9] According to the Respondent, because there was no change in the circumstances of the Appellant’s employment, his moving expenses are not deductible. The evidence shows that the Appellant continued to be employed by the same employer and reported to the same work location. The Appellant does not dispute this fact. The Respondent cites decisions of this Court that have followed Bracken notwithstanding the change in the wording of the provision.
[10] The Appellant argues that an “eligible relocation” exists when the relocation of a taxpayer enables the taxpayer to remain employed at his current work location. More specifically, the taxpayer would meet the requirements of the definition of “eligible relocation” as long as he needed to move closer to his work location in order to continue working.
The court found that the appellant had not proven that the move was necessitated by his employment, as opposed to purely personal factors:
[12] Contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, the evidence shows that the Appellant sold his home and bought a smaller one for personal reasons. At the very least, for the reasons outlined below, the Appellant has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he moved in order to continue working. Therefore, I do not have to choose between the two interpretations described above to decide this appeal, and will refrain from doing so.
[13] It is common knowledge that homeowners move to a smaller home for a number of reasons. For example, they may be empty nesters who no longer require a large home and/or a large lot because their children have grown up. As people approach retirement, they downsize because they want to reduce living expenses, extract capital to supplement retirement income, or free up time for travel, etc. by freeing themselves from home maintenance. All of these reasons are valid personal choices.
[14] The only explanation offered by the Appellant is that he had to move because he could not maintain a large property and work at the same time. However, because the Appellant was guarded in his explanation, he has failed to convince me that this was the reason for his move. Had the Appellant described all of the circumstances surrounding the move, I may have been persuaded to accept the statement of his intent. For example, was capital extracted for reinvestment purposes? Was the new home closer to the Appellant’s health care providers? How long did the Appellant continue working after he moved?
[15] In my opinion, it is not sufficient for a taxpayer to declare that he moved to get closer to work and to continue working when there are no changes in his employment conditions. He must provide evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the move so as to enable the Court to decide whether the declaration of his subjective intent is accurate. If this were not required it would be easy for taxpayers to deduct moving expenses incurred for personal reasons by moving shortly before retirement rather than doing so after retirement.
As a result the appeal was dismissed.