http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71767/index.do 
Légaré v. The Queen (May 15, 2014 – 2014 TCC 155) was a case dealing with the GST/HST new housing rebate under the Excise Tax Act. The sole point at issue was the date when the residence was substantially completed and, accordingly, whether the rebate claim was filed within the two year statutory limitation from the date of substantial completion:
[2] The dispute concerns primarily the date on which the appellant’s complex was substantially completed.
[3] In making and confirming the assessment, the Minister relied, among other things, on the following findings and assumptions of fact:
• The appellant undertook himself, or through a person he had hired, the construction of a residential complex located at 53 Bord-de-l’Eau Street in Portneuf [the complex]; (admitted)
• The complex was entered on the municipality’s assessment roll on September 1, 2002; (admitted)
• An application for a tax rebate for new housing was filed with the Minister on June 20, 2006; (admitted)
• A review of the purchase invoices submitted by the appellant with his rebate application showed the Minister that the expenses were incurred mostly in 2001 and 2002; (denied)
• In 2003, the appellant purchased paint, an alarm system, sod, fencing, and other materials for landscaping; (admitted)
• In 2004, work was done almost exclusively on the shed and the finishing of a workshop; (admitted)
• The Minister therefore determined that January 1, 2004, was the date when the complex was substantially completed. (denied)
[4] The appellant claims that, when he applied for the tax rebate on June 20, 2006, less than 90% of the construction work on the new housing had been completed, despite the fact that he had moved into the new housing on July 14, 2004. He also claims that his rebate application was made within the time limit prescribed by the ETA, namely, on June 20, 2006, which is within two (2) years of the move-in date to the new residence.
The Tax Court found that more than 90% of the work had been completed by January 1, 2004, i.e., more than 2 years before the date of the rebate claim made on June 20, 2006:
[18] The appellant’s situation is very similar to that of Mr. Mercure in the decision cited in the previous paragraph. By January 1, 2004, the appellant had incurred no less than 93.04% of the total expenses related to the construction of the house. By December 31, 2002, over 87% of total construction expenses had already been incurred.
[19] The volume of construction work completed in 2001, 2002 and 2003 tends to show that, by January 1, 2004, the appellant’s house was habitable or on the verge of being habitable. The appellant put his Donnacona residence up for sale in March 2004, and moved in to his new residence on July 14, 2004. Let us recall that, in 2004, the appellant was still working as a consultant and that he could not spend all of his time on the construction of the house.
[20] The list of work to be completed as of January 1, 2004, as provided by the appellant, indicates that it was essentially the second floor (office with built-in bookshelf and billiard room) that had to be finished. The appellant also admitted that the work done in 2004 was almost exclusively done on the complex’s shed and on finishing a workshop.
[21] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed because the application was filed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by the ETA.