Legault – Court of Quebec finds that a Canadian diplomat who had been living mostly abroad for many years was factually resident in Quebec

The taxpayer, who had spent her childhood in Quebec, then spent most of her time abroad, including being employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs in various diplomatic functions. From 2016 to 2020, she served as the Canadian ambassador to Barbados and then, after several days in Quebec, in January 2021 took up her position as the Canadian ambassador to Mali.

She was reassessed by the ARQ for her 2018 and 2019 taxation years on the basis that she was a resident of Quebec. For those years, she had filed federal income tax returns (also paying the additional federal tax in lieu of being resident in a province), but not Quebec returns.

In finding that the taxpayer was a resident of Quebec for the two taxation years at issue, Chalifour JCQ first stated (at para. 60, TaxInterpretations translation) that “leaving Quebec for work reasons does not generally constitute a breaking of residence ties with Quebec.” Throughout the period, the taxpayer had been the owner of a residence in Quebec and, in September 2019, her daughter, who had been studying in Barbados while staying with her mother, took up her studies in Quebec. Furthermore, the taxpayer had a Quebec driver’s licence, Quebec-registered vehicle, Quebec health card, and Quebec credit cards and bank account. It was not decisive that her life partner resided in France rather than Quebec.

Before concluding that the taxpayer was factually resident in Quebec during the 2018 and 2019 years, Chalifour JCQ referred to s. 8(1)(c) of the Taxation Act (Quebec) which (similar to ITA s. 250(1)(c)) deemed an individual to be resident in Quebec throughout a taxation year if, at any time in the year, the individual “was an ambassador … of Canada … and was resident in Québec immediately prior to … employment or appointment by Canada.” Chalifour JCQ stated (at para. 49) that “for section 8 to apply, the taxpayer must, in fact, no longer reside in Quebec.” As she also concluded that the taxpayer was factually resident in Quebec, s. 8(1)(c) did not apply.

It would have been more accurate to state that the taxpayer would have been deemed by s. 8(1)(c) to be resident in Quebec if she had been factually resident in Quebec immediately before her appointment, years before, to the federal government.

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Legault v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2026 QCCQ 1320 under s. 2(1) and s. 250(1)(c).