http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/100540/index.do 
Ho v. The Queen (January 16, 2015 – 2015 TCC 10, D’Arcy J.).
Précis: The appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to buy a new home (the “Woodbine” home). Because of financial difficulties he turned to his cousin and his cousin’s wife to purchase the property as co-owners. The purchase closed and the Woodbine property was subsequently sold. His cousin and his cousin’s wife moved into the property on closing but the appellant never resided at the Woodbine property prior to its sale. The Court held that he was not entitled to new housing GST rebates in respect of the Woodbine property.
Decision: This is another example of a taxpayer being disentitled to the new housing rebates under the Excise Tax Act by virtue of bringing accommodation parties into the purchase transaction:
[2] On August 4, 2009, the Appellant, Tony Ho, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with respect to the purchase of a new home to be constructed on property located on Woodbine Avenue ByPass in Markham, Ontario (the “Woodbine Property”). The purchase price for the Woodbine Property was $403,900 (tax included), with a closing date in April 2011. Mr. Ho paid a $40,000 deposit in respect of the purchase.
[3] On November 6, 2009, the Appellant’s cousin, Kwinson Ho, Kwinson Ho‘s spouse, Chun Sim Yip, and Kwinson Ho’s mother entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with respect to the purchase of a new home to be constructed on property located on George Heenan Street in Markham, Ontario (the “Heenan Property”). The purchase price for the Heenan Property was $549,900 (tax included), with a closing date in October 2011.
[4] Unfortunately, Mr. Ho subsequently lost his job and he realized by late 2010 that he did not have the financial ability to complete the purchase. He then turned to his cousin, Kwinson Ho, for assistance.
[5] Sometime in January 2011, the parties amended the agreement of purchase and sale for the Woodbine Property to add Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip as purchasers.
[6] On April 14, 2011, Tony Ho, Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip closed the purchase of the Woodbine Property. Immediately after closing, Kwinson Ho, Chun Sim Yip and Kwinson Ho’s mother resided in the Woodbine Property.
[7] On April 29, 2011, Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip listed the Heenan Property for sale.
[8] On June 8, 2011, Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip listed the Woodbine Property for sale.
[9] On June 29, 2011, Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip sold the Woodbine Property. The sale closed on September 15, 2011.
[10] In October 2011, Kwinson Ho, Chun Sim Yip and Kwinson Ho’s mother closed the purchase of the Heenan Property and began to reside in that property.
The Court accepted the evidence of the Appellant that when he signed the agreement of purchase and sale, and when it was amended, he intended to live in the Woodbine Property. However that intention appears to have been abandoned (or frustrated) for economic reasons:
[29] Kwinson Ho stated that he and Chun Sim Yip intended to sell the Heenan Property. In fact, they listed the property for sale on April 29, 2011. Kwinson Ho and Chun Sim Yip became concerned when the Heenan Property did not sell within six weeks of it being listed for sale. Kwinson Ho explained that the Heenan Property purchase was scheduled for closing in October 2011 and that, for financial reasons, they had to sell one of the homes prior to this October 2011 closing date. As a result, on June 8, 2011 they listed the Woodbine Property for sale.
[30] The Woodbine Property sold shortly thereafter. Kwinson Ho, Chun Sim Yip and Kwinson Ho’s mother then closed the purchase of the Heenan Property and began to reside in this home.
Unfortunately for him he never lived at the Woodbine Property at any time between its acquisition on April 14, 2011 and its sale on September 15, 2011:
[45] The Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in
Hamel v. The Queen, 2004 TCC 315, 2005 G.S.T.C. 75. In my view, this decision is distinguishable, since my colleague Justice Tardif found that all of the members of the group either occupied the residence at the time the rebate application was made or intended to occupy the residence.
[46] Unfortunately, this is not the fact situation before me. Tony Ho, one of the members of the Purchasing Group, did not reside at the Woodbine Property nor did he intend to reside at the property. The only residents of the Woodbine Property were Kwinson Ho, his spouse and his mother.
[47] Further, neither Kwinson Ho, nor his spouse, nor his mother is a relation of Tony Ho for the purposes of the GST Legislation.
As a result the Appellant’s appeal in respect of the Woodbine property was dismissed, but without costs.