http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/143596/index.do
Karim v. The Queen (April 13, 2016 – 2016 TCC 91, V. Miller J.).
Précis: Mr. Karim claimed, and was denied, the Canada Child Tax Benefit and other credits in respect of his 13 year old daughter. Mr. Karim appealed to the Tax Court. The Court found that after Mr. Karim separated from his spouse in 2013 the daughter lived with her mother and visited her father occasionally, sometimes doing her homework at his apartment. The Court found that such visits were not sufficient to entitle him to the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the other credits at issue. The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.
Decision: The facts were not complex:
[10] The Appellant and his former spouse have one daughter who was 13 years old at the start of the relevant period. The Appellant testified that he, his former spouse and his daughter lived together at his apartment until March 2013. After March, the former spouse and his daughter moved out. The Appellant stated that he thought it would be good for his daughter, who was a teenager, to sleep at her mother’s place.
[11] A Divorce Order, dated December 12, 2013 was tendered as Exhibit A-1. It did not set out any parameters for custody.
[12] The former spouse testified that in March 2013, she and her daughter moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a building which was several blocks from the Appellant. In 2014, they moved to a one-bedroom apartment in the same building.
[13] Despite the move, the Appellant was still very involved in his daughter’s life. On school days, he drove her to and from school and her mother’s place. He drove her to extracurricular activities, and volunteered at her school. He submitted letters from the school and called a witness, Ms. Kadric, to corroborate this. He arranged his work hours to accommodate his daughter’s activities. The Appellant also drove his daughter to medical appointments. On school days, the Appellant brought lunch to his daughter. However, the daughter ate dinner at her mother’s place.
[14] The Appellant submitted evidence that his daughter still used his address on some medical and school forms. The parties to the appeal agreed that the daughter communicated her daily needs to the Appellant and received emotional support from him. According to the former spouse, when her daughter fell ill, she stayed with the former spouse’s mother or other relatives.
[15] The Appellant testified that he always reserved a room in his apartment for his daughter so that, if she wanted, she could stay with him. However, the Appellant agreed that his daughter has not actually slept there since March 2013. Moreover, his daughter’s furniture, including her bed, had all been moved to her mother’s home. The Appellant’s daughter sometimes did her homework at the Appellant’s apartment.
The Court held that the daughter’s periodic visits did not entitle Mr. Karim to the Canada Child Tax Benefit or the other credits he sought:
[38] In my view, the question of whether the Appellant’s daughter slept at his domestic establishment (i.e. his apartment) is not the proper question under this statutory provision. Instead, the question is whether he supported her in that establishment. This would, in my view, require the daughter to do more than just occasionally visit at the Appellant’s apartment. Although the Appellant’s daughter did sometimes do her homework at his apartment or visit on the weekends, this is insufficient for me to find that he supported her in that apartment.
[39] The credit for an eligible child under paragraph 118(1)(b.1) is available if either subparagraphs 118(1)(b.1)(i) or 118(1)(b.1)(ii) is satisfied. Subparagraph 118(1)(b.1)(i) does not apply because it requires the child to ordinarily reside throughout the year with the claimant of the credit together with another parent of the child. Subparagraph (ii) only applies if the claimant is entitled to the credit for a wholly dependent person under paragraph 118(1)(b), which the Appellant is not. Therefore, the credit for an eligible child is also unavailable.
As a result the appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs since this was an informal procedure appeal.