http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/67105/index.do 
D’Ambrosio v. The Queen[1] (March 3, 2013) concerned a claim for a GST/HST new housing rebate. The house in question was built by the appellant on a 100 acre parcel of land and was jointly owned by the appellant, his wife and his three children. The appellant’s position was that the house was the primary place of residence of his son, Daniel, and therefore qualified for the rebate.
The court rejected Daniel’s evidence and dismissed the appeal:
[15] The documentary evidence showed that from 1998 to 2011, Daniel reported to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) that his mailing address was in Toronto. He actually notified the CRA on February 16, 2011 that his home address had been changed and he provided them with a new address but this too was in Toronto. On June 18, 2012, he reported that his mailing address was the Property.
[16] Daniel’s T4s showed that from 2002 to 2011 (inclusive) he worked at a pub in Toronto and he lived in Toronto.
[17] At the hearing, Daniel stated that he now has an apartment in the Danforth area of Toronto. He stated that he spends most of his time in Toronto. He used to work in Toronto but is now unemployed as he is attending school in Toronto. He estimated that, when he was working, he spent 3 days on the weekend at the Property. He stated that he went to the Property on a Saturday and returned to Toronto on Monday or Tuesday. He did not have a vehicle and he went to the Property only on the weekends with the Appellant. After he stopped working, (he did not give a date), he usually spent two days on the weekend at the Property.
[18] There were no documents to show that Daniel had moved to the Property. The temporary driver’s licence which he submitted was only obtained after the claim for the Rebate was denied and I have given it no weight. His change of address with the CRA in 2012 was also to support his position in this matter.
[19] The hydro bills submitted to the CRA by the Appellant showed that the average daily usage of electricity for the Property for March 8, 2011 to May 11, 2011 was only 5 kilowatts per day. It increased to 20 kilowatts per day for the summer period, July 11, 2011 to August 11, 2011, but then decreased to an average of 2 kilowatts per day for the period August 11, 2011 to January 10, 2012. I have concluded that the Property was occupied only part time and mainly during the summer months.
[20] At the time the Appellant constructed the housing unit on the Property, Daniel worked and lived in Toronto. Both the Appellant and Daniel stated that there were no prospects of Daniel obtaining employment in Hastings County where the Property was located. Daniel did not have a vehicle and could not commute to another area for employment. Given this and the fact that the Property is located in an area of Ontario where there are many recreational properties, I find that the Appellant has not shown that, at the time of constructing the house, he intended the Property to be Daniel’s primary residence. Also, he did not submit any documents to support his position that the Property was the primary residence for Daniel.
[21] I find that the Appellant is not entitled to the Rebate and his appeal is dismissed.
[1] 2014 TCC 63.