In response to a request as to its interpretation of s. 118.5(1)(b) following Fortnum, CRA first noted that, regarding the attendance of the taxpayer in that case at a 10- week summer semester consisting of 11 courses each of one or two weeks’ duration, “the court applied the three consecutive week requirement to the summer semester as a whole, rather than to each individual course in the semester,” and then stated:
Our interpretation of subparagraph 118.5(1)(b)(i) … as explained in paragraph 2.10 of … S1-F2-C2 .. has generally not changed as a result of … Fortnum. … [T]his case was heard … under the Informal Procedure … [and] do[es] not have precedential value.
Notwithstanding this, the CRA will consider a course of less than 3 consecutive weeks duration to satisfy the requirement in subparagraph 118.5(1)(b)(i) in situations factually similar to Fortnum.