Words and Phrases - "occupy"

The appellant’s husband agreed in June 2014 to purchase a newly built residential property in Guelph, then her name was substituted for that of her husband as the purchaser in November 2015. The purchase closed on December 1, 2015 and they moved in - but on January 20, 2016 they listed it for sale, with the sale closing on February 27, 2016, and they moved back into an apartment.

In finding that the property, in fact, had been “occup[ied] … as a place of residence” in December and January 2016 by the appellant and her husband for purposes of the s. 254(2)(g) test, Sorenson, J, stated (paras. 65, 70):

It is indisputable that two “place of residence” concepts exist side by side in s. 254(2), and s. 254(2)(g) only contemplates simple “place of residence” unmodified by “primary”. For the distinction between paragraphs (b) and (g) to be meaningful, the concept of residence in paragraph (g) must be regarded as attenuated or moderated. …

The bar for s. 254(2)(g), properly interpreted, is low. In the present case, the behaviours of the appellant and Mr. Sharma are sufficient to qualify as occupancy of the Property as a place of residence, when considered in the context of their particular circumstances, taking into account their personal lives, family and careers. They moved their personal belongings (including furniture) to the Property, did not have any other home, slept there (although not every night), had family in the area, had means of receiving mail other than at the Property address, and also had family and work obligations that impacted their time at the Property.