http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71766/index.do 
Agrebi v. The Queen (May 9, 2014 – 2014 TCC 141) was a case where the appellant was claiming a child tax benefit and GST credits:
[1] The appellant is appealing determinations made with respect to the Canada child tax benefit and the goods and services tax credit.
[2] One of the essential conditions to be met in order for a person to be the “eligible individual” for the purpose of receiving the child tax benefit and the GST credit is being resident in Canada.
[3] The Minister of National Revenue admits that the appellant became a resident of Canada again on July 24, 2010, and that, consequently, he is entitled to receive the Canada child tax benefit and the GST credit as of August 2010.
[4] At issue is whether the appellant was resident in Canada in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 and during the period from January 1 to July 23, 2010, as he contends, or whether he was not, as the respondent contends.
[Footnote omitted]
During the period in issue the appellant was living in Tunisia, having been deported from Canada and prohibited from returning to Canada. The appellant argued that he remained a Canadian resident since his departure was involuntary and his wife remained in Canada. That court did not accept this line of argument:
[21] During the period of more than five years in question, the appellant, a Tunisian citizen, had significant ties to Tunisia. He lived in Tunisia with his daughter at his parents’ home. He had a bank account in Tunisia.
[22] During that period, his wife was in Canada and he wanted to return to Canada, but he did not have the right to enter Canada. Until he obtained a visa, there was no certainty that he would succeed in returning to Canada.
[23] Under such circumstances, I do not see how I could find that the appellant “regularly, normally or customarily” lived in Canada during the period of more than five years in question.
[24] Consequently, I must find that the appellant was not resident in Canada during the period in question. The appeal is dismissed.
[Footnotes omitted]