Kirsten Humphrey

The appellant appealed a GST/HST assessment denying a New Residential Rental Property Rebate of $24,000.

The Minister denied the rebate on the basis that the property was not a qualifying residential unit because the first lease was for less than one year.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it was reasonable to expect the first use of the property would be as a primary place of residence under a lease of at least one year.

This case involves competing interim parenting motions in a high-conflict family litigation.

The Respondent Mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Hamilton to Woodbridge, alleging family violence.

The Applicant Father sought the child's return to Hamilton and joint decision-making, denying abuse.

The court, facing conflicting affidavit evidence and a young child, adjourned the Applicant Father's motion until a s.30 assessment was completed.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the Respondent Mother and granted the Applicant Father supervised parenting time, adjusting the schedule to reduce transit time.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the difficulty of interim mobility motions, and the need for caution with conflicting affidavit evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention for the return of his three-year-old daughter to Florida.

The respondent mother had travelled to Toronto with the child in July 2021 and subsequently decided not to return.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence immediately prior to the alleged wrongful retention in December 2021.

The court found that the focal point of the child's life was in Canada, where she had spent a significant portion of her life and where her primary caregiver and extended family resided.

As the child was habitually resident in Canada, the Hague Convention application was dismissed.