Lui v. Canada (January 18, 2016 – 2016 FCA 12, Pelletier, Stratas (author), Gleason JJ. A.).
Précis: The taxpayer claimed a New Housing Rebate which was denied by CRA since she bought the land from one company and the home from another. The taxpayer dismissed her appeal on this point. It also held that she was out of time for another rebate, the “owner-built” rebate. The taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, with costs, as it did not disclose any reversible error in the Tax Court.
Decision: The Court of Appeal held that the Tax Court was right in holding that the New Housing rebate was not available:
 Subsection 254(2) of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 allows for a new housing rebate for “a single unit residential complex or a residential condominium unit” purchased from a builder. Section 123 defines “a single unit residential complex” as both the house and the land. In other words—and this is the interpretation adopted by the Tax Court—a rebate is available only where a person buys the land and contracts for the building of the house from the same entity.
 On the same day in 2010, the appellant and her spouse purchased a lot from one company and contracted with another company to construct a house on the lot. On these facts, the Tax Court ruled that the appellant had entered into two separate transactions on the same day and that they could not be viewed as one. This meant that a rebate could not be claimed under section 254 of the Excise Tax Act.
 Unless there is an error of law or legal principle, we can only interfere with the Tax Court’s finding on the basis of palpable and overriding error. This is a high test. See Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33,  2 S.C.R. 235 and on the meaning of palpable and overriding error, see, e.g., Canada v. South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, 431 N.R. 286.
 On this issue, the Tax Court did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions, nor is there any palpable and overriding error in the Tax Court’s assessment of how the provisions applied to the evidence before it.
Similarly, the owner-built rebate was unavailable since the taxpayer was out of time:
 The Tax Court also held that the appellant could not receive another rebate for tax—one for an owner-built home—because she failed to claim it within the two-year legislative limitation period. Here again, the Tax Court did not err in its interpretation of the legislation, nor is there any palpable and overriding error in the Tax Court’s assessment of how the legislation applied to the evidence before it. I also note that the Canada Revenue Agency advised the appellant to file for the rebate for an owner-built home in time but the appellant did not do so.
As a result the appeal was dismissed with costs.