The taxpayer, who maintained throughout a residence in Ontario at which his wife and son (both dependants) lived, commenced for over six months to work in a prescribed zone in Quebec where he lived in employer-provided accommodation. However, during this period, travelled to his residence in Ontario for various extended leaves. His travel expenses were reimbursed. In finding that the taxpayer was not entitled to the s. 110.7(1) deduction, CRA stated:
In general terms, absence from a prescribed zone does not automatically change the period of residence in that zone if the taxpayer lives there permanently. …
[However, where] individuals … live in a prescribed zone and maintain a self-contained domestic establishment for themselves or any other dependents in a non-prescribed zone … the absences of those individuals from the prescribed zone result in a break in the continuity of residence in the area. Thus, for those individuals … the principal place of residence is not in such a prescribed zone.