http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/site/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/66661/index.do 
Goldstein v. Canada[1] (February 3, 2014) was an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/site/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/31183/index.do 
which held that:
[39] Based on the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that Ms. Goldstein has had had a customary mode of living in the United States at least since her marriage in 2000 and that her ties to Canada are not sufficient to constitute residence.
The Federal Court of Appeal summarized the issues on appeal as follows:
[1] A judge of the Tax Court of Canada determined that the appellant was not a resident of Canada during the 2000 to 2009 taxation years and base taxation years (2013 TCC 165). As a result, the appellant was not an eligible individual entitled to receive child tax benefits or goods and services tax credits under the
Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).
[2] The parties agree that the Judge articulated the correct test for determining residency: a person is resident in the country where he or she, in the settled routine of life, regularly, normally or customarily lives, as opposed to the place where the person unusually, casually or intermittently stays (
The Queen v. Laurin, 2008 FCA 58, 2008 DTC 6175, at paragraph 2).
[3] The appellant asserts, however, that the Judge erred in her assessment of the reliability of the appellant’s husband’s testimony (he was the only witness to testify on the appellant’s behalf) and further erred in the inferences she drew from the facts in evidence.
The appeal was dismissed from the bench:
[6] The Judge dealt with the evidence of residency proffered before her on the appellant’s behalf. The Judge expressed concern about the reliability of the evidence and considered the weight to be given to the evidence. There was evidence to support each of her impugned findings and there is no basis upon which to interfere with the Judge’s assessment of the weight to be given to the evidence.
[7] While the Judge may have reached a different conclusion on this or another evidentiary record, we are confined to review her decision on the basis of palpable and overriding error. Since palpable and overriding error has not been established, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
[1] 2014 FCA 27.