The taxpayer and her husband owned a home in Richmond Hill (Brillinger). In 2013, they bought an old home in Toronto (Balliol), tore it down, and built a new five bedroom home and moved there in April 2015, which was after she had completed chemotherapy but before surgery. They continued to own Brillinger and visited there on weekends. When she was in recovery, the taxpayer decided they should move back to Brillinger to be closer to her friends and community, which they did in August 2015. The Minister assessed on the basis that they were builders (i.e., the Balliol home had been constructed in the course of a business or adventure in the nature of trade) when they sold the Balliol home at a gain in March 2016.
In allowing their appeal, Spiro J stated (at paras. 32,-34-35):
[Circumstances responsible for the sale] … strongly favour ... the Appellants. The chain of events leading to the disposition began with Ms. Abedipour’s cancer diagnosis, followed by chemotherapy and its side effects, followed by surgery, followed by Ms. Abedipour’s desire to move back to Brillinger to be close to her social circle and support network. The Appellants offered a plausible explanation… .
… Rather than installing multiple televisions, the Appellants installed multiple fireplaces. This strongly suggests that they built the home only for themselves.
… [T]he Appellants left nothing for a potential purchaser to customize. … The fact that the Appellants finished everything to their own personal taste strongly suggests that they built the home only for themselves. The fact that it took the Appellants six months to sell the property after several price reductions supports this conclusion as do the extensive renovations performed by the buyers.