http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/73381/index.do 
Kandiah v. The Queen (September 17, 2014 – 2014 TCC 276) was an appeal dealing with whether the taxpayer was entitled to the GST/HST New Housing Rebate. The taxpayer and his wife had owned a home in Ajax, Ontario for some years when he signed an agreement of purchase and sale to acquire another home in Toronto. The Toronto home was acquired in September of 2010 and flipped in December of that year with a March 2011 closing:
[10] In September 2010, Mr. Kandiah and his daughter, Renu, started to live in the new house at 50 Minerva Avenue, in a fashion I will soon describe. Mr. Kandiah’s brother testified that he helped Mr. Kandiah move, a move that involved taking two mattresses, a small stove, fridge and kettle to the new home. He also indicated there was a Hindu ceremony at the new premises. Mr. Kandiah stated that he and his daughter also took a couple of towels and a couple of plates and cups. When asked where she ate, given there was no table, the daughter suggested she ate simply sitting on her bed.
[11] Mrs. Kandiah and the rest of the family remained at 132 Kearney Drive in Ajax as did most of Mr. Kandiah’s belongings.
[12] Renu, the daughter, was pleased with the new accommodation as it saved her a couple of hours a day commuting to Ryerson University, given its closer proximity to Ryerson than the Ajax home. She stated they stayed in this arrangement for about five months.
[13] Coincidently with occupying the new home at 50 Minerva Avenue, Mr. Kandiah sought possible tenants. Within a couple of weeks, by October 5, 2010, he had also listed 50 Minerva Avenue for sale. The listing indicated “brand new never lived in.” The property sold for approximately $558,675 in December 2010 with possession given in March 2011.
At the date of the closing of the sale of the Toronto home, the taxpayer and his wife continued to own the home in Ajax.
The court was not impressed with the taxpayer’s evidence that he intended to acquire the Toronto property as a primary place of residence:
[20] On a preliminary point, I find that if there was any intent, it was an intent that applied to the whole family, not just Mr. Kandiah or his daughter. In considering actual use of the property, it follows I should consider whether the actual use matches intended use, that is, primary residence for the whole family. It does not. Only Mr. Kandiah and one daughter stayed at the new residence. And even then, I question whether what they did was use 50 Minerva Avenue as a primary place of residence, which I will now address.
[21] Taking a few belongings (mattresses and towel for example), leaving behind virtually all of your other belongings and furnishings in the family home, does not constitute actual use of 50 Minerva Avenue as the primary place of residence for the family. At best, I would describe Mr. Kandiah’s and his daughter’s arrangement as camping, not residing – certainly not residing as a primary place of residence.
[22] Mr. Kandiah’s counsel argued it is inappropriate to consider the quality of residing – squalor or opulence – but simply the fact of residing. I do not necessarily disagree. But there must still be the element of use as a residence, and, indeed residing as a primary place of residence. Mr. Kandiah gave no evidence of time spent at 50 Minerva Avenue, eating arrangements, or any of his comings and goings. There was no place to eat evidenced by the daughter suggesting she would simply have tea on her bed. The evidence falls far short of proving to me he actually resided there as one would normally view residing in the context of using the property as your primary place of residence.
[23] Further proof in this regard is the real estate listing which describes the property specifically as brand new, never been lived in. The factor of actual use does not help prove Mr. Kandiah’s intention.
As a result the appeal was dismissed.