http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/66554/index.do 
Sirivar v. R.[1] (January 22, 2014) concerned moving expenses claimed by an employee of CRA in connection with his relocation from Ottawa to Toronto:
[2] From February 2002 to January 2008, the Appellant worked as a tax officer for the CRA in Ottawa. He resided in a townhouse which he owned in Ottawa.
[3] In January 2008, he moved to Toronto to take up a new position with the CRA. The first week he lived in a hotel. Afterwards, he rented a room in a private home.
[4] The Appellant testified that he intended to purchase a home in Toronto but postponed the purchase because he was required to work at different locations. For about 20 weeks during the relevant period, the Appellant was required to return to Ottawa to work on a large case that was under appeal. He was reimbursed for only eight of the 20 weeks for which he incurred travel expenses. Moreover, for most of the period, there was uncertainty as to which CRA office he would report to in Toronto. Higher housing prices in Toronto also prevented the Appellant from acquiring a home there in 2008.
[5] In March 2011, the Appellant finally sold his Ottawa residence. He claimed approximately $5,000 in respect of his home ownership expenses. According to the Appellant, the Ottawa residence was unoccupied during 2011. In prior years, the Appellant had rented out rooms to relatives to help cover his home ownership expenses. His cousin, Tefiro Kyeyune, testified that he moved out of the Appellant’s residence in 2010. However, he could not confirm that the home was unoccupied in 2011.
[6] The following table is a summary of the expenses which were claimed by the Appellant and disallowed by the Minister of National Revenu:
|
Year
|
Expense
|
Amount claimed
|
Amount allowed
|
Amount in dispute
|
|
2008
|
Room rental in Toronto
|
$5,250
|
$275
|
$4,975
|
|
9 trips to Ottawa
|
$677.57
|
$196.88
|
$480.69
|
|
2011
|
Ottawa home ownership expenses
|
$5,000
|
$0
|
$5,000
|
|
Travel expenses
|
$940.16
|
$0
|
$940.16
|
|
Storage and moving expenses
|
$4,828.80
|
$4,268.80
|
$560
|
The court disallowed the travel expenses both in 2008 and 2011. The court also disallowed the Ottawa home ownership expenses claimed in 2011 since they had been claimed and allowed in 2010. The court did however allow the full room rental claimed in Toronto in 2008:
[13] The Respondent submits that paragraph 62(3)(c) limits the general deduction of lodging expenses to a period of up to 15 days. It relies for this on Justice Favreau’s decision in Christian v. The Queen:
20 The disputed amount in respect of the claim for temporary living expenses (accommodation) is $4,550.88. The Minister has accepted an amount of $2,298, which represents 13 days and is within the 15-day maximum period allowed by paragraph 62(3)(c) of the Act. This statutory requirement allows of no exceptions and must be met. The Minister has accepted the claim for those expenses supported by receipts that were incurred while the Appellant stayed in the London area.
[14] I note that paragraph 63(2)(c) refers to the deduction of “the cost . . . of meals and lodging” for temporary accommodations. In the instant case, the Appellant’s claim is for lodging alone, which is not specifically covered by paragraph 63(2)(c). In my opinion, the provision contemplates a claim for room and board expenses. If Parliament had intended to restrict lodging expenses to 15 days, it would have done so explicitly. Paragraph 62(3)(c) is meant to include things that might not otherwise be considered “moving expenses”.
[15] The facts in Christian are also substantially different than those in the instant case. The evidence shows that in the present case the Appellant’s employer prolonged the completion of the Appellant’s move to Toronto. The Appellant could not find a permanent home because it was unknown to him where his exact workplace in Toronto would be and because his employer wanted him to divide his time between Toronto and Ottawa. The Appellant should not be penalized for accommodating the needs of his employer.
[1] 2014 TCC 24.