Yes — under the Excise Tax Act’s self-supply rules, a person can be a “builder” and owe GST/HST even without any history of professional development, if the facts as a whole point to an adventure in the nature of trade rather than genuine long-term personal use. That was the outcome in Harpreet Braich and Balwinder Braich v. The King, 2026 TCC 117, where the Tax Court dismissed the appeals of a couple who built and later sold a custom Surrey, BC home, despite their evidence that the sale was driven by a difficult neighbourhood rather than a profit motive. The decision is fact-specific and turned heavily on this family’s broader real estate history — it does not mean every quick home sale automatically triggers builder status.
The Facts
Mr. and Mrs. Braich purchased a vacant lot in Surrey, BC in March 2016 for $522,500 and built a large, 5,650-square-foot, nine-bedroom home, completed in September 2017. They testified that the home was meant to be their permanent family residence, but that a nearby murder in March 2017 and ongoing harassment from neighbours made the property increasingly unliveable. The family reduced their time at the property, purchased a new home in June 2018, listed the original property in May 2019, and sold it in July 2019 for $1,650,000 — a $310,375 gain.
CRA reassessed each spouse for half of the GST collectible on a self-supply basis, taking the position that the Braiches were “builders” under section 123 of the Excise Tax Act who had not occupied the home as a primary residence.
How the Court Reached Its Finding
The legal test turns on whether the Braiches “carried on a business or engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade” when they built the home, applying the Happy Valley Farms factors: the nature of the property, length of ownership, frequency of similar transactions, work expended, circumstances of the sale, and motive.
The Court found this analysis was decided against the Braiches largely because of their broader real estate transaction history: over roughly 20 years, the family had bought and sold eight properties in the Vancouver area, several involving vacant-lot construction and, on at least two prior occasions, an owner-builder licence. Set against that pattern, the Court found the evidence of trade purpose outweighed the family’s account of a genuine, if disrupted, personal-use intention.
The primary-residence exemption was also found unavailable, largely for evidentiary reasons: the Braiches did not produce the kind of objective documentation courts typically look for — moving receipts, driver’s licence or health card address changes, furniture delivery receipts — and “staged” celebratory photographs of the finished home didn’t help their position.
What This Case Is — and Isn’t — About
This decision is entirely about GST/HST self-supply liability under the Excise Tax Act. It says nothing about how a sale like this would be treated for income tax purposes — whether as a capital gain or business income. That is a related but separate legal question, governed by its own case law, and this judgment does not address it.
It’s also worth noting the case turned heavily on this family’s specific 20-year transaction history. A one-time home builder without a similar pattern of past construction-and-sale activity could reasonably reach a different result on the same factors — the outcome here was not a foregone conclusion based on the single transaction in isolation.
The Documentation Lesson
Whatever the eventual classification, the Court’s emphasis on the absence of routine personal-use evidence is instructive. For anyone building a home genuinely intended for personal use — even where plans later change for reasons entirely outside their control — contemporaneous records of actual occupancy are the kind of objective evidence courts look for. Their absence here was treated as working against the Braiches, on top of an already unfavourable transaction history.
FAQ
Do I need to be a professional developer to be a “builder” for GST/HST purposes?
No. As this case shows, the Excise Tax Act’s definition can capture an individual who builds a home in circumstances amounting to an adventure in the nature of trade, without any professional development background.
Does a difficult neighbourhood or personal hardship protect against a “builder” finding?
Not automatically. The Court accepted the Braiches faced genuine neighbourhood problems, but weighed that against a long history of buying, building, and selling properties.
Does this case decide how the sale would be taxed for income tax purposes?
No. This is a GST/HST self-supply decision only — it does not address whether the gain would be a capital gain or business income.
What evidence helps show a home was genuinely a principal residence?
Moving receipts, driver’s licence or health card address changes, furniture delivery receipts, and ordinary evidence of day-to-day occupancy.
When does GST/HST self-supply tax apply to a home a builder constructs?
Generally when the property is substantially complete and put to a use other than sale in the ordinary course — here, that point was found to be around the home’s completion in 2017.
Could a one-time home construction project turn out differently than this case?
Possibly. This result relied heavily on the family’s extensive prior transaction history; a taxpayer without that history could reasonably reach a different result on the same factors.
Practical Takeaways
- A pattern of prior property purchases, construction, and sales can be decisive in a GST/HST “builder” analysis, even where the stated intention for the specific property was genuine personal use.
- This case addresses GST/HST self-supply only — it does not decide the income tax treatment of a similar transaction.
- Contemporaneous, objective evidence of personal occupancy is the kind of documentation courts look for, and its absence can weigh against a taxpayer.
Building or selling a newly constructed home?
GST/HST treatment should be reviewed before construction, occupancy, or sale. Lepore & Company assists homeowners, builders, and real estate businesses with GST/HST builder rules, self-supply obligations, and CRA reviews.
This article discusses a single Tax Court of Canada decision (Informal Procedure) and is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, tax, or accounting advice, and it does not address income tax treatment of similar transactions. Please contact Lepore & Company or a qualified professional to discuss your specific circumstances before building, renovating, or selling residential property.