Osagie – Tax Court of Canada finds that the taxpayer was entitled to the new housing rebate because her intention to satisfy its requirements was legitimately frustrated

The taxpayer did not satisfy one of the mandatory requirements for the Ontario new housing rebate (contained in ETA s. 254(2)(g)) because, when the new residential unit in Caledon was ready for occupancy, she leased it to a third party for a number of months before her family moved in, rather than her family being the first occupants.

Bodie J. nonetheless accepted that the new housing rebate was available to her because her intention of occupying the property from the outset as her place of residence had been frustrated due to COVID-related challenges. He stated that “the family had no real choice but to stay in Windsor until the conditions caused by the pandemic stabilized and to earn rental income from their unoccupied property in the interim.” He refrained from discussing principles of statutory interpretation.

Neal Armstrong. Summary of Osagie v. The King, 2025 TCC 114 under ETA s. 254(2)(g).