http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/64345/index.do 
Langelier v. The Queen[1] (October 22, 2013) involved a claim for moving expenses. The taxpayer continued to work for the same employer at the same location. She claimed that the move was necessitated by her new duties for her employer. While there was conflicting Tax Court jurisprudence on the point, the court opted for the narrower interpretation and denied the taxpayer’s claim:
[19] In the present case, there is no evidence that the appellant’s physical work location had changed, and that she occupied a new position as a result of her new managerial responsibilities.
[20] The business card filed by the appellant as evidence that her job title had changed to Accounting Administration had no date on it, so it is not possible to determine when the change in job title took place.
[21] It is also clear from the evidence that the appellant had no increase in salary nor in employment benefits for the period from August 2010 to December 31, 2010. It also appears that the appellant reduced her working hours for the same pay.
[22] Based on the modern approach of interpretation of taxing statutes, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, I do not believe that Parliament’s intent was to permit a taxpayer to deduct moving expenses in circumstances where a taxpayer performed new duties with the same employer at the same business location.
[23] Based on the above facts, I am unable to find that the appellant’s claim for the 2010 moving expenses falls within the ambit of subsection 62(1).
[1] 2013 TCC 322.