Guerrero v. The Queen
 (October 28, 2013) was a claim by the father of a child to the Canada child tax benefit. The court held that while he had joint custody of the child he was not, on the evidence, the “parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the” child within the meaning of the definition of “eligible individual” contained in subsection 122.6 of the Income Tax Act:
 Ms. Rico testified that she primarily looked after the child. She ensured that her son was fed and that his clothes were clean at the daycare. She dealt with medical appointments. However, the appellant stated that he had brought his son to the hospital once and that the daycare called either parent when the child was sick.
 On the basis of the facts described below, I find that, for the months of September to November 2010, Ms. Rico was the individual eligible to receive the CCTB. Ms. Rico fulfilled a greater share of the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her child than the appellant.
 For the period from December 2010 to July 2011, a Superior Court order gave custody of the child to the mother from Friday evening to Tuesday morning (4 days) and to the father for the rest of the week (3 days). Through the same order, the appellant became responsible for paying child support to his ex‑wife in the amount of $149.58 per month effective December 16, 2010.
 The fact that the appellant’s ex‑wife had custody of the child for more days and the fact that the appellant had to pay child support to her clearly tend to demonstrate that the child’s mother was primarily fulfilling the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child and that the mother is the individual eligible to receive the CCTB for this period.
 In conclusion, the appellant has discharged his burden of rebutting the Minister’s assumption that his ex‑wife had sole custody of the child during the months of September to November 2010, but the appellant has not discharged his burden of proving that he was the parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of his son during the periods in question. Therefore, the Minister’s redeterminations are confirmed, and this appeal is dismissed.
 2013 TCC 342.
 R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), as amended.