Connect with us

Opinion

Budget 2019 – Poor wording requires 2 ex-spouses within 5 years for Home Buyers Plan

Published

6 minute read

This is one of those rare times I hope I am wrong in my interpretation, and look forward to being proven wrong by my professional colleagues.

On March 19, 2019 the federal government tabled its election-year budget. One of the newest and strangest provisions is the ability for people going through a separation or divorce to potentially have access to their RRSP under the Home Buyers Plan.

Now in my article and podcast entitled: “Escape Room – The NEW Small Business Tax Game – Family Edition” with respect to the Tax On Split Income (TOSI) rules, I made a tongue in cheek argument that people will be better off if they split, because then the TOSI rules wonā€™t apply.

In keeping with the divorce theme, beginning in the year of hindsight, 2020, the federal government is giving you an incentive to split up and get your own place.

However, there are a few hoops:

On page 402 of the budget, under new paragraph 146.01(2.1)(a), at the time of your RRSP withdrawal under the Home Buyers Plan, you must make sure that:

  • – the home you are buying is not the current home you are living in and you are disposing of the interest in the current home within two years; or
  • – you are buying out your former spouse in your current home; and

you need to:

  • be living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner;
  • have been living separate and apart for a period of at least 90 days (markdown October 3, 2019 on the calendar),
  • began living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner, this year, or any time in the previous 4 years (ok, you donā€™t have to wait for October); and…

…here is where the tabled proposed legislation gets messy.

Proposed subparagraph 146.01(2.1)(a)(ii) refers to where the individual

  • wouldnā€™t be entitled to the home buyers plan because of living with a previous spouse in the past 4 years that isnā€™t the current spouse they are separating from

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C), andā€¦”

The problem with the wording of this provision, is that it is written in the affirmative by the legislators using the word ā€œandā€. This means, you must be able to answer ā€œtrueā€ to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.

The way I read this, the only way to answer ā€œtrueā€ to this subparagraph is if you have a second spouse (ie: spouse other than the spouse referred to) that you shared a home with and you split from in the past four years.

If you have a second spouse that you shared a home with in the past four years, then ā€œparagraph (f)ā€ in the definition of ā€œregular eligible amountā€ would apply and the answer would be ā€œtrueā€.

If the answer is “true” you can then get access to your RRSP Home Buyers Plan.

If you donā€™t have a second spouse then, even though “paragraph (f)” might be met, the phrase ā€œspouse other than the spouse referred toā€ would not be met, and therefore the answer would be ā€œfalseā€.

This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be ā€œfalseā€ and so you would not be able to take out a ā€œregular eligible amountā€ from your RRSP for the Home Buyers plan because you do not meet the provisions.

If my interpretation is correct then I would really be curious as to what part of the economy they are trying to stimulate.

In my opinion the legislation could be fixed with a simple edit:

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of:

(A) a spouse or common-law partner; or

(B) a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C); and…”


Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Coryā€™s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: ā€œPeople donā€™t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.ā€ More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

John Rustadā€™s Residential School Claim Is False And Dangerous

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

When politicians misrepresent facts or historical events, whether out of ignorance or political expediency, they do a disservice to the truth and public trust. On Feb. 24, 2025, B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad reportedly told Global News that ā€œmore than 4,000 children did not return homeā€ from residential schools because ā€œthose children died in residential schools.ā€ As researcher Nina Green points out, this statement is demonstrably false and contradicts the Truth and Reconciliation Commissionā€™s (TRC) final report.

Sadly, Rustad is not the only one making such claims. Similar statements, portrayed as facts, are repeated by politicians who should know better.

The truth, according to the TRC, is that 423 named children died on the premises of residential schools between 1867 and 2000. That is a tragedy, and we must expand our understanding of how and why these deaths occurred. To learn from tragedies, we must acknowledge and reflect on them. But to truly understand, we must accept what is true rather than bending or distorting it. Repeating the claim that ā€œmore than 4,000ā€ children died in residential schools, as Rustad and others have uncritically reported, misrepresents reality.

The vastly inflated number, according to Green, originates from the University of Manitobaā€™s National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), which has misrepresented the data by including children who died after leaving schoolā€”in hospitals, in accidents at home, and even well into adulthood. This distortion has led to widespread misrepresentation, misleading policymakers and the public.

Why does this matter?

Canadaā€™s history with Indigenous residential schools is deeply painful. Abuses, neglect and forced assimilation were real in many instances. However, distorting the facts about residential school deaths promotes a false narrative of genocide that does not serve justiceā€”in fact, this false narrative undermines it. If reconciliation means anything, it must be built on truth, not contrived political narratives.

By repeating the claim that more than 4,000 children died at residential schools, Rustad is spreading falsehoods and stoking division. This figure has been used to justify claims of mass graves, leading to international headlines and widespread outrage that harm present generations of Indigenous people. Yet, nearly four years after the first claims of unmarked graves, no remains have been excavated or verified.

Rustad is not a private citizenā€”he is a public figure whose words carry weight. As such, he is responsible for ensuring that the information he disseminates is accurate. Rustad is failing in his duty to the public. Depending on his motivation, he contributes to a culture in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for political expediency.

Some may argue that the exact number of students who died at residential schools is not important. But truth is not negotiable. If we accept exaggerated claims in one instance, we set a dangerous pattern for historical distortions. The truth should not be ideological or political.

If Rustad is serious about Indigenous issues, he should demand transparency from the University of Manitoba and its NCTR. Instead of accepting misleading figures, he should call for the full release of the TRC records, as was promised in 2013.

Leaders like Rustad must be held accountable. Falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned, do not advance reconciliation. They erode trust, divide Canadians, and ultimately undermine the cause they claim to support. All Canadians deserve much better.

Marco Navarro-GenieĀ is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor ofĀ Canadaā€™s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral PanicĀ (2023).

Continue Reading

Courageous Discourse

March 2020 Intel Brief to PM Johnson: “COVID-19 WAS ENGINEERED IN WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY”

Published on

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)Ā By John Leake

Briefing from former head of SIS and other top security analysts stated unequivocally that pandemic originated at WIV, refuted fraudulent “Proximal Origins” paper by Andersen et al.

Fellow Substack author Michael Schellenberger just shared an intelligence briefing dated 27 March 2020 from Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of British intelligence, and other ranking security analysts to Prime Minister Johnson. The following is a reproduction of the first page.

In other words, Sir Richard and his team expressly told Prime Minister Boris Johnson on March 27, 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 came out of the WIV.

Note that the authors state that the Nature Medicine paper published by Andersen et al. (ā€œThe proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2ā€)Ā is incorrect and that:

the scale and nature of its errors and its prime source (Zhou et al) raise important further non-virological questions, including of geo-strategic and domestic security, that can be addressed separately in slower time.

We judge therefore, that the PRC [Peopleā€™s Republic of China] is conducting information operation to embed the natural causation narrative, and, by misdirection, and to conceal the true origin and responsibility.

We know from Andersen et al.ā€™s private e-mail correspondence with Anthony Fauci in late February 2020 that they knew that SARS-CoV-2 was not of natural origin.

This raises an extremely pressing question: Were Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, Robert F. Garry, and Anthony Fauci working for the PRC?

Sir Richard Dearlove and his colleagues raise this suspicion, because they must have known that Andersen et al. werenā€™t simply hoodwinked by Chinese virologists Zhou et al.

We know that Peter Daszak of EcoHealth and Professor Ralph Baric were collaborating with Chinese scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that Anthony Fauciā€™s NIAID was supporting their research as well.

Setting aside questions about the legality of their research,Ā shouldnā€™t all of these people be arrested and tried for the fraudulent concealment of information of vital public interest?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson chose to conceal from the British public the reality disclosed in this memo. Does British law make him immune from liability for concealing this matter of vital public interest from the British people? Note that Johnson also took decisive action to sabotage peace talks between Ukraine and Russian in Turkey in March 2022.

Should the British people trust Johnsonā€™s representations about the conflict between Ukraine and Russiaā€”representations that have been endorsed by his successor, Keir Starmer? For all the British people know, Johnson received security briefings about this conflict that contradict what he has told them about the war.

Then thereā€™s the abominable mainstream media in the U.S. and Britain that characterized everyone who pointed out the obvious indications of the lab origin as ā€œconspiracy theorists.ā€

The New York Times just published an ass-covering Opinion titled ā€œWe Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Livesā€ā€”as though the Times editors someone managed to remain ignorant about the mountain of evidence of this until now.

The disclosure of this British intelligence memo comes on the heels of almost identical disclosures about the German government of Angela Merkel. As investigative journalist Michael Nevradakis justĀ reportedĀ in the CHD Defender:

Germanyā€™s foreign intelligence agency, the BND, determined with 80%-95% certainty in 2020 that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic originated with a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China ā€” but successive governments kept the information ā€œunder lock and key,ā€ according to a German investigative report.

The report, published jointly on Wednesday byĀ Die ZeitĀ andĀ SĆ¼ddeutsche Zeitung, was the result of an 18-month investigation.

The investigation found that in 2020, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel commissioned a BND operation code-named ā€œProject Saaremaaā€ that targeted Chinese agencies and research institutions.

When the BNDā€™s investigation concluded that a Wuhan lab leak was the most likely source of theĀ COVID-19Ā pandemic, the Merkel government prohibited the spy agency from releasing its results to the public.

When Mr. Nevradakis asked me what I thought about the German disclosure, I told him the following:

The revelation that German intelligence knew that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab, and was not of natural origin, is no surprise, given the vast amount of evidence that the pathogen was not zoonotic. It’s also not surprising that the Merkel government decided to conceal the spy agency’s findings.

The BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) has long worked very closely with the CIA, and the Merkel government consistently complied with Washington’s directives. Concealment of the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with the German government’s concealment of Paul Ehrlich Institute’s assessments about many elements of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For over three years, Dr. Peter McCullough and I have expressed our conviction that the cover-up of the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the greatest organized crime in history. The latest revelations about the BND and the Merkel government confirm our long held suspicions.

For a full copy of the March 27, 2020 Security Briefing to Prime Minister Johnson, clickĀ HERE.

Share

Continue Reading

Trending

X