http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/67129/index.do 
D’Ambrosio v. The Queen[1] (March 5, 2014) dealt with the appellant’s claim to tax credits in respect of child support payments he was required to pay to his former spouse pursuant to an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Subsection 118(5) of the
Income Tax Act[2] prohibited him from claiming tax credits in respect of such payments:
118(5) No amount may be deducted under subsection (1) in computing an individual’s tax payable under this Part for a taxation year in respect of a person where the individual is required to pay a support amount (within the meaning assigned by subsection 56.1(4)) to the individual’s spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law partner in respect of the person and the individual
(a) lives separate and apart from the spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law partner throughout the year because of the breakdown of their marriage or common-law partnership; or
(b) claims a deduction for the year because of section 60 in respect of a support amount paid to the spouse or common-law partner or former spouse or common-law partner.
The taxpayer, who was self-represented, claimed that subsection 118(5) violated his rights under subsection 15(1) of the
Charter:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The court rejected the taxpayer’s claim that mothers are “unjustly favoured” by subsection 118(5) and dismissed the appeal:
[18] [The appellant] relied on statistics published by the Department of Justice to argue that when there are court-ordered custody arrangements, mothers are “unjustly favoured” in receiving custody of the children. The result he states is that males are predominantly the support payers.
[19] The statistics he referred to were the Selected Statistics on Canadian Families and Family Law with respect to Child Custody for 1994-1995. There was nothing in these statistics that disclosed a factual basis to allege that mothers were “unjustly favoured” in receiving custody of children.
[20] In custody cases, it is usually the person who earns the most income who must pay support. If this happens to be the male, it cannot be a ground for discrimination. As stated by Webb J, as he then was, in
Calogeracos:
In this case the provision in question neither makes a formal distinction between males and females nor does it fail to take into account the Appellant’s already disadvantaged position within Canadian society. It draws a distinction based on whether the individual is paying child support, which is based on the income levels of the parents since the obligation to pay child support is based on the relative income of the parents. The fact that in most joint or shared custody arrangements it is the male who is making child support payments cannot be grounds for a claim for discrimination by the Appellant as males who make more money than females are not in a disadvantaged position in Canadian society.
…
[22] In conclusion, I have no jurisdiction to alter or interfere with the Order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and there was no evidence given to me that would allow me to ignore it. The Appellant’s section 15
Charter rights have not been infringed by the application of subsection 118(5) of the ITA. The appeal is dismissed.
[1] 2014 TCC 70.
[2] R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).