Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Tax law 2026 TCC 28

Talukdar v. The King

The Tax Court allowed Mr. Talukdar’s GST/HST new housing rebate appeal, finding he intended the condo as his primary residence and was the first occupant.

  • New housing rebate
  • Primary place of residence
  • Subsection 254(2)
  • Burden of proof
  • Credibility and evidentiary assessment
  • Gst-hst-rebate
Read case analysis
Tax law 2025 TCC 186

Gaitanis v. The King

The Tax Court dismissed Lazaros Gaitanis’s appeal from a GST/HST new housing rebate assessment because he did not prove the required intention at signing.

  • New housing rebate
  • Qualification requirements
  • Intention test
  • Definition of relation
  • Frustration of contract
  • Subsection 254(2)
Read case analysis
Tax law 2025 TCC 114

Osagie v. The King

The Tax Court of Canada allowed Cecilia Osagie’s informal GST/HST rebate appeal, finding she intended to occupy the home as a primary residence and that COVID-19-related events frustrated first occupancy.

  • New housing rebate
  • Subsection 254(2)
  • Intention to occupy
  • Occupancy requirement
  • Frustration of condition
  • New-housing-rebate
Read case analysis
Excise tax act (gst/hst) 2018 TCC 258

Sozio v. The Queen

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove she had the requisite initial intention to occupy the townhouse as her primary place of residence at the time she became bound under the APS, and failed to prove first occupancy or that occupancy was frustrated; accordingly the New Housing Rebate under s.254(2) was properly denied.

  • New housing rebate
  • Initial intention to occupy
  • First to occupy
  • Unoccupied exempt sale
  • Subsection 254(2)
Read case analysis
Tax law 2018 TCC 79

Omapas Duyo v. The Queen

The appeal is dismissed because one of the co-purchasers did not intend to occupy the property and did not occupy it, and under subsection 262(3) the intention-to-occupy requirement in subsection 254(2) applies to all purchasers as a group; a later Acknowledgement of Trust and the contention that the co-purchaser was a bare trustee do not relieve the co-purchaser of the statutory intention-to-occupy requirement as interpreted by the Federal Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Cheema, 2018 FCA 45.

  • New housing rebate
  • Subsection 254(2)
  • Intention to occupy
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Bare trust
  • Group of purchasers
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.