http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/67308/index.do 
Brar v. The Queen (March 17, 2014- 2014 TCC 76) was a GST/HST appeal dealing with a claim for a new housing rebate. The appellant had been involved with a dispute with the vendor and delayed filing a rebate application for years while pursuing the litigation:
[5] On September 4, 2004 the appellant and his spouse entered into an agreement with Landview Homes Ltd. (“Landview”) to purchase property consisting of a house that was to be constructed on a lot at 1408-69 Street in Edmonton (the “Property”). The Property was a “residential complex” as defined in subsection 123(1) of the Act. The agreement with Landview required that the appellant assign the new housing rebate to Landview as part of the consideration for the Property.
[6] The title to the Property was transferred by Landview to the appellant and his spouse on January 24, 2005 and they took possession and moved into the house on May 5, 2005. Shortly thereafter, the appellant and his spouse became aware of deficiencies in the construction of the house. It appears that, because of the dispute, the appellant and his spouse did not take the steps necessary to assign the new housing rebate to Landview. Eventually, the appellant and his spouse sued Landview and Landview counter-sued.
[7] The matter was finally resolved by a Judgment issued by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in 2011. The Court found Landview liable to the appellant and his spouse for certain construction deficiencies, and found the appellant and his spouse liable to Landview for the amount of the rebate.
[8] On October 31, 2011, the appellant submitted his GST/HST new housing rebate application for a house purchased from a builder.
The court was forced to dismiss the appeal since the appellant did not make the rebate claim within the 2 year period allowed by the statute:
[11] Returning now to subsection 254(3), the appellant’s spouse did not deny that the claim was not made within 2 years of the date the Property was transferred to them but she maintained that it was necessary to wait until the court case against Landview was resolved to file the rebate claim. It does not appear to me, though, that the appellant was prevented by the lawsuit from making the rebate claim and no evidence to this effect was led. Although Landview claimed that the appellant had agreed to assign the rebate to it, it was still open to the appellant to file a claim for the rebate before the matter was decided by the Court. While it is understandable that the appellant and his spouse may have been confused as to whether a new housing rebate could be made while the lawsuit was ongoing, the fact remains that the claim was not made within 2 years of the transfer of the Property to them.
[12] Unfortunately, once the statutory deadline has expired, no new housing rebate can be obtained. In
Cairns v. The Queen, 2001 GSTC 52, this Court stated:
. . . The intention of Parliament to limit the time period for the filing of a rebate application has been set out in clear and unambiguous language. When the meaning is clear, the Court has no jurisdiction to mitigate a harsh consequence. . .
[13] Regretfully, I must dismiss the appeal.