http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/71351/index.do 
Jhanji v. The Queen (April 29, 2014 – 2014 TCC 126) was a very sympathetic case. The taxpayer and his wife were in the process of moving to Canada from India when she was struck a fast-spreading cancer and died shortly thereafter. The taxpayer decided to proceed with the move to Canada but left his son in boarding school in India:
[4] The Appellant kept D, who was thirteen at the time, enrolled in the Indian boarding school he had attended since 2006. Hard hit by the loss of his wife and mother and having seen his family’s move to Canada disrupted, the Appellant decided to first establish himself in Canada so as to not disrupt his son’s education in India. The Appellant believed that this would provide D with a modicum of stability following the loss of his mother. The Appellant then moved to Canada in August 2011, eventually settling in Winnipeg.
The taxpayer claimed the Canada Child Tax Benefit (“CCTB”) in respect of his son and the Minister denied it because the son did not “reside” with him.
The court did not accept the Minister’s position:
[20] The facts before me suggest that, but for the tragic and unexpected death of the Appellant’s wife, the family would be living together in Winnipeg. The family came to Canada in 2010 to obtain their permanent residency status and plan their move to Canada. The death of D’s mother meant that there would be one less parent to take care of D and one less income earner to support the family in their new country. The Appellant believed that under these new circumstances it would be best for D to remain at the boarding school he had been attending the six previous years. This offered the Appellant’s son greater stability as the Appellant took steps to establish the family permanently in Canada.
[21] The Appellant kept the role of D’s primary caregiver and paid his boarding school tuition and his expenses. It was arranged by the Appellant that D, during his infrequent breaks from school, would live in the Appellant’s quarters at the extended family’s shared home. The Appellant could not afford to return to India to visit D during the 2010 base taxation year, but he returned twice the following year. This was more suitable than bringing D to Winnipeg as the Appellant’s accommodations were less than ideal for hosting his son and D was receiving tutoring in India during his vacations. Throughout his time in Canada the Appellant has been making monthly contributions to an RESP account so that D will be able to receive post-secondary education when he moves to Canada in the near future.
[22] Given my finding that the Appellant and D would have been living together during the period at issue were it not for the unforeseen death of the Appellant’s wife, I conclude that the Appellant and D can be considered as having constructively resided together from August 2011 through June 2012. The CCTB regime was designed to support families in their efforts to meet their basic needs and improve their economic circumstances. I do not believe that the legislative intent behind the residency requirement was to exclude otherwise eligible families who have had to adapt to unfortunate circumstances.
[23] For all of these reasons I find that the Appellant was an “eligible individual” from the month of August 2011 onwards during the 2010 base period.
Comment: While the Income Tax Act does not normally admit a great deal of flexibility, where one is dealing with very general terms like “reside” it is refreshing to see the courts adopt a remedial approach in line with the clear objects of the CCTB.