http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71003/index.do 
Konecny v. The Queen (February 11, 2014 – 2014 TCC 114) is the substantive counterpart of a procedural decision blogged earlier on this site:
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/64344/index.do
Mr. Konecny had a full time (10 months per year) teaching job in Whitby. Every summer he and his children spent July in Ottawa staying with his mother (his wife stayed at their home in Whitby with the car where she continued her normal employment). Mr. Konecny arranged to teach full time in Ottawa each July. The sole issue was whether his travel expenses to Ottawa were moving expenses from an “eligible relocation”:
[1] Under subsection 62(1) of the
Income Tax Act, taxpayers, when calculating taxable income in the year of a move, may deduct certain moving expenses arising from an “eligible relocation”. In turn, an “eligible relocation” is defined under subsection 248(1): moving from an old residence, where the Appellant ordinarily resides before the move, to a new residence where the Appellant will ordinarily reside after the move in order “to enable the taxpayer…to be employed in Canada” at the “new work location”.
The court was not persuaded by Mr. Konecny’s arguments:
[15] Mr. Konecny’s ordinary residence did not change because Mr. Konecny expended little demonstrable effort to change it. His teaching job with the ODSB [Ottawa District School Board] was planned in 2011 (as in previous years according to Mr. Konecny) well ahead to coincide with a reconnection with family, friends and boyhood community. The nature of the move was transitory and seasonal, not permanent. Lastly, however settled, normal and usual the trip to Ottawa became in 2011, or in other years for that matter, it was not clothed with factual indicia of an ordinary, permanent residence reflecting a customary mode of life.
[16] Empirically, one concludes that the trip to Ottawa eased acceptance of a job with the ODSB, rather than the job with the ODSB having necessitated a move or relocation to be ordinarily resident in Ottawa. The move was not to enable the job, but the job otherwise reduced the financial burden of the summer visit of Mr. Konecny to his family, friends and boyhood community. It is all of the above factual characteristics when combined with this plausible, alternative purpose of such a stay that do not constitute a change in ordinary residence.
[17] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
http://rslawyers.com/our-lawyers/william-innes/
http://rslawyers.com/