" The facts that the Unit and the Navy Wharf property [another condominium unit] were purchased by them within one day of each other; the appellant’s extensive experience in real estate for 25 years; the existing Townsend rental property; and they resided in the Rockford property in 2005 [a house the appellant had owned for many years], where they resided at the time of the hearing, are indicators that the Unit was acquired as an investment."
The appellant wasn't helped by the fact that she listed the property within one month of closing of her purchase and sold it for a $140,000 profit. CRA also relied on Enbridge electricity bills to show that she lived there but the the consumption pattern didn't fit habitation.
Note that you don't have to show that you lived in the unit in order to qualify for the rebate -- just that you signed the purchase agreement intending to live there. But if, trying to prove your intention to live there, you do claim, as did the appellant, that you lived in the unit, you expose yourself to undermining your credibility where, as here, the facts make your story about moving unbelievable.
The decision is a good guide to the kinds of factors a court will look at to see whether a party moved or intended to move: Hydro bills (for usage); sale of existing home ; change of address on bank and credit card statements [55 ff]; notice to insurer ; enough parking spaces ; purchase and sale of other properties; occupation in real estate field.
See Berkovich v. The Queen, 2014 TCC (Lyons)