http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/109431/index.do 
Reynolds v. The Queen (May 1, 2015 – 2015 TCC 109, V. Miller J.).
Précis: The appellant had custody of her two step-children approximately 1/3 of the time. The rest of the time they were with their mother. The appellant was not entitled to the Canada Child Tax Credit or the Goods and Services Tax Credit. She was not the person who “primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the” step-children, not was she a “shared-custody parent” who resided with the step-children “on an equal or near equal basis”. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Decision: This decision was based entirely upon fact. Ms. Reynolds claimed that she was entitled to the Canada Child Tax Credit and the Goods and Services Tax Credit since she was the primary caregiver for her two step-children. Alternately, she claimed to be entitled to share in the credits as a “shared-custody parent”. The Tax Court rejected both of her claims based on the facts:
[28] It is clear in the present case that the Appellant is not a shared-custody parent as the Children did not reside with her on an equal or near equal basis during the period. During a two week period, excluding the time the Children were in school, they were with Ms. Wagner for 166 hours or 49% of the time and with the Appellant for 110 hours or 33% of the time. When the hours in school are allocated based on who picked the Children up and who dropped them off to school, Ms. Wagner had the Children 65% of the time.
[29] As a result, the Appellant has not shown that during the period she was the parent who was primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of the Children nor has she shown that she was a shared-custody parent. I find that the Appellant was not an “eligible individual” with respect to the Children during the period July 2011 to June 2013. The appeal is dismissed without costs.
TAGS: Canada Child Tax Credit, Goods and Services Tax Credit, Tax Litigation