http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71348/index.do 
Daimsis v. The Queen (April 28, 2014 – 2014 TCC 118) was a somewhat odd case. The taxpayer had declared income for 2003 and 2004, albeit a couple of years late. CRA then did a net worth assessment based on her perceived life style. Her position was that her fiancé, Mr. Garfield, had paid most of her expenses in those years while the two of them lived together. They subsequently had a falling out and she originally appeared hesitant to identify him. He was called as a witness on her appeal and had to be arrested since he did not comply with a subpoena. His evidence essentially supported hers:
[11] Darrell Garfield is the Appellant’s former fiancé. He was an unwilling witness and not very forthcoming. In fact, he had to be arrested pursuant to a warrant which I issued when he failed to respond to a subpoena. In his testimony, he admitted that he and the Appellant lived together for some time about 10 years ago. It was in the West Island, he believes on Hurteau. He does not remember the exact time frame. They were supposed to be married and he did buy her a ring but it did not work out. He testified that he does not recall if she was working while they lived together. He was clear, however, that he did pay the majority of the bills including the rent and groceries. He stated that he was working at the time. He stated that she continued to live there even when he was not. He would not pay the bills when he was not living there since he believed that she was working at the time. They did buy furniture and he allows that it is possible that he gave her money. He does not think that he helped out with any car payments, contrary to what she stated. He paid for living expenses. The relationship ended abruptly, he stated that she threw him out with the dog.
Mr. Garfield’s grudging support for the taxpayer, along with the taxpayer’s own evidence, was sufficient to convince the court to allow her appeal:
[28] It is clear that she and Mr. Garfield would not have had any time to collaborate and discuss their evidence. In spite of this, it is clear that both she and Mr. Garfield agree that he paid her living expenses. I find that the Appellant was credible when she testified that he paid her living expenses and she is corroborated in her testimony by the evidence of Mr. Garfield in that regard. Even though I have some difficulty in accepting the evidence of Mr. Garfield, since he does have something to hide, he was independent as between the Appellant and the Respondent regarding the issues before the Court. The issue of credibility is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant.