http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/72953/index.do 
Kaplan v. The Queen (July 4, 2014 – 2014 TCC 215 ) was a decision where the taxpayer claimed Canada Child Tax Benefit in respect of five of his children for 2007 to 2010.
He was denied the Benefit on the basis that during the years in question he was not a resident of Canada. The court reviewed the factual background:
[3] Mr. Kaplan was the only witness to testify.
[4] He was born, raised and educated in Toronto. He is a Canadian citizen and a naturalized U.S. citizen because his late father was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Kaplan described himself as a factual resident of Canada until age 24 when he went to the U.S., in 2002, to embark on full-time, long-term advanced Talmudic studies at the Kollel Knesses Yisroel seminary in Staten Island, New York, commencing May 2003. The studies are not available in Canada. The deadline to complete his studies has been extended several times, but he will complete his studies in January 2015.
[5] His Canadian passport expired on October 17, 2002. He then obtained a U.S. passport, effective from July 21, 2003 to July 20, 2013,[3] and he subsequently obtained a Canadian passport effective November 3, 2012.
[6] In December 2001, he married his spouse, a U.S. citizen, in New York. Mrs. Kaplan has been a full-time special education teacher in New York since 1999. She has approximately 25 family members residing in New York and New Jersey. The youngest of six children, she grew up in New York and her parents and two brothers and families reside in New York. Her two sisters and their families reside in New Jersey and her other brother with his nine children reside in Seattle. Mr. Kaplan acknowledged his wife is not a Canadian citizen nor a resident.
[7] In early 2002, the Kaplans had rented a friend’s place in New Jersey and by mid-July 2002, they had rented an apartment while waiting for campus housing. Since 2003, the Kaplan family have lived rent-free in campus housing. Initially they resided in an apartment, however, in 2007, because of their growing family, they moved to a house where they currently live. Their possessions in the U.S. include clothing, furnishings, appliances and gadgets. The seminary required students and their families to live on campus to create a close-knit community.
The court found Mr. Kaplan’s position troubling:
[33] By the time of the hearing, Mr. Kaplan had spent 13 years pursuing his study program in advanced Talmudic studies. The lengthy presence in the U.S. and corresponding absence from Canada poses some difficulty for Mr. Kaplan.
[34] In addition to acceptance at the seminary, other significant factors in July 2002 include: his wife continuing to maintain her employment; his wife’s first pregnancy; they had rented their second accommodation while waiting for campus housing; and they purchased and registered their first car in the U.S. These are material changes. I am not convinced that his presence in the U.S. had the sense of transitoriness, as described in Thomson, or was casual or intermittent, as described in Goldstein v The Queen, 2013 TCC 165, [2013] TCJ No. 131. The settled routine of his life, and that of his family, since July 2002 has been in the U.S., not in Canada.
After a detailed review of the evidence the court concluded that Mr. Kaplan had severed his residential ties with Canada prior to the taxation years in question and dismissed his appeal:
[58] Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that his ties to Canada are not sufficient to show he was a resident in Canada. Instead, his settled routine of life and customary mode of living was in the U.S. since July 2002 and his visits to Canada had a sense of transitoriness. I conclude that Mr. Kaplan was not resident, and therefore not ordinarily resident, in Canada during the relevant period and thus not an eligible individual, as defined in section 122.6 of the Act, for the purposes of the Benefit.
[59] The appeal is dismissed.