Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Sylvain Mecteau contested tax assessments issued by Agence du revenu du Québec (Revenu Québec) for taxation years 2013 to 2018, on the basis that he was an Alberta resident during those years.
• Determining fiscal residency is a question of fact assessed under principles established in Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] SCR 209.
• Tax assessments carry a presumption of validity under article 1014 of the Loi sur les impôts, placing the initial burden on the taxpayer to present convincing prima facie evidence that the assessment is incorrect.
• Geographic location data from Mecteau's own cellphone records showed he was present in Québec between four and eight months per year, contradicting his own lower estimates.
• Maintaining a property in Bécancour continuously available for his use — while his Alberta connections were limited to employment — was treated as a significant indicator of Québec residency.
• Mecteau failed to discharge his burden of proof to rebut the presumption of validity of the assessments.

Facts of the case

Sylvain Mecteau, a self-represented applicant, contested notices of assessment issued on January 22, 2021, by the Agence du revenu du Québec (Revenu Québec) for taxation years 2013 to 2018. Revenu Québec took the position that Mecteau was a resident of Québec throughout those years and was therefore liable for provincial income tax. Mecteau maintained that he had been a resident of Alberta from 2005 to 2021, covering the period from when he began working in that province until his return to Québec upon retirement. He worked on refinery construction sites in Fort McMurray, held Alberta union affiliations, and possessed an Alberta driver's licence, vehicle registration certificate, and provincial health insurance card. He also held a bank account at the Royal Bank of Canada branch in Fort McMurray, opened in April 2005. In Alberta, he rented a room in a friend's house, as did other workers. He did not hold a Québec driver's licence or Québec health insurance card, and he did not work in Québec during the period in dispute. An opposition to the assessments was decided on February 1, 2022, and the matter proceeded to trial before the Cour du Québec.

Policy and legal framework at issue

The applicable statutory provision is article 22, paragraph 1 of the Loi sur les impôts (RLRQ, c. I-3), which requires any individual who is a Québec resident on the last day of a taxation year to pay tax on their taxable income for that year. Because the statute does not define "residence," the court applied the ten-principle framework derived from the Supreme Court of Canada's 1946 reference decision, Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] SCR 209. Among those principles: residency is a question of fact determined by all circumstances; habitual residence means residing in a regular, normal, or customary manner; physical presence alone is insufficient without a habitual character; and intention to be a resident is not required. Pursuant to article 1014 of the Loi sur les impôts, a tax assessment benefits from a presumption of validity. As clarified by the Cour d'appel, the taxpayer must first "demolish" that presumption by presenting convincing, precise, and probative prima facie evidence showing the factual basis of the assessment to be incorrect — a bare denial is insufficient. If the taxpayer meets that threshold, the burden shifts to Revenu Québec to prove the validity of the assessment by a preponderance of evidence.

Reasoning and analysis

Revenu Québec based its assessments on a set of factual assumptions, including that Mecteau had never filed income tax returns for the years in dispute, that he had resided in Québec prior to the period at issue, and that he acquired a property on rue des Bécassines in Bécancour in November 2013 — with the mortgage contracted in Québec. Electricity, television, and internet services were provided uninterrupted at the Bécancour residence from December 2013, and residential telephone service was added in March 2014. Cellular call records placed Mecteau in Québec for several months per year, and banking records at the Caisse Desjardins de Gentilly reflected frequent transactions in Québec throughout the period. All tax slips issued by his various employers indicated a Québec address.

Before the assessment, Mecteau had told Revenu Québec that he spent approximately two months per year in Québec. At trial, he revised that estimate to three to four months annually. The court noted, however, that geographic location data drawn from his own cellphone contradicted both figures, showing he was in Québec between four and eight months each year. Mecteau acknowledged that this data came from his own device. He also conceded the essential facts relied upon by Revenu Québec, disputing only the duration of his annual stays. Prior to purchasing the rue des Bécassines property, Mecteau maintained a residence on rue Harfang-des-Neiges in Bécancour, and he acknowledged having always retained a dwelling in Québec, which he used as a base upon his returns. That address appeared in the deed of sale and mortgage for the Bécancour home. A close friend lived at the Bécancour property without paying rent from the time of its acquisition; Mecteau described her as a "colocataire" and continued to live with her at the time of the hearing. He regularly sent her cheques to cover household expenses and bore all costs associated with the property.

The court found that Mecteau had at all times maintained a place of residence in Québec, and that his presence there was regular, sustained, and recurring — occurring whenever he was not at work. His ties to Alberta, by contrast, were confined to his employment. Accordingly, his absences from Québec were attributable solely to professional obligations and were therefore temporary in character. The court also noted that Mecteau had consistently expressed an intention to return permanently to Québec upon retirement — a plan that materialized when he ceased working in 2022, his retirement having been brought forward due to health issues.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Honourable Nathalie Lavigne, J.C.Q., rendered judgment on May 28, 2026, rejecting Mecteau's contestation. The court held that he had failed to discharge his burden of proof to rebut the presumption of validity attaching to the assessments for taxation years 2013 to 2018, and that those assessments were therefore valid. Revenu Québec, the successful party, was awarded no costs, as its representative expressly confirmed at the hearing that no costs were being sought. The contestation was dismissed without costs.