Sidhu v. The Queen, 2004 DTC 2540, 2004 TCC 174 -- summary under Paragraph 45(1)(a)

The taxpayer, who had used a property as a rental property for nine years and then allegedly used the property as a temporary residence before disposing of it at a gain, had failed to meet the burden of proof of satisfying the Court "that it is reasonable to find on the evidence that the occupation of the subject property was an unequivocal use inconsistent with the original use or, at least, that such occupation was not a use reasonably consistent with the original use". Hershfield J. noted (at p. 2545) that "the brief occupation by the owner that follows during a pre-sale period is not necessarily a use that is inconsistent with the prior rental use of the property".