http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/67106/index.do 
Mitchell v. The Queen[1] (March 3, 2014) involved a dispute over the Canada Child Tax Benefit (“CCTB”). The appellant and his spouse separated toward the end of 2011. The appellant had three children all of whom lived with him from January 2012 to April 2012. At that point one child moved in with her mother leaving the appellant with the remaining two children from May 2012 to June 2013. The Minister denied the appellant the CCTB in 2011. Thereafter the Minister only allowed ½ of the CCTB on the basis that the appellant was a “shared-custody” parent.
The court allowed the appeal for 2012 and 2013 on the basis that the appellant was the primary caregiver:
[13] Each of the Appellant, D, and N stated that the boys, D and N, resided with the Appellant during the period January 2012 to June 2013. Their evidence was supported by letters from the Social Services Department, Ontario Works Division; the principal of the high school where the boys attended; the family doctor; and, the bus company which provided transportation for the boys to and from school.
[14] It is my view that the Appellant has provided sufficient evidence for me to conclude that he was not a “shared-custody parent” for D and N in 2012 and 2013. The boys did not reside with the Former Spouse on an ‘equal or near equal basis’. They resided with the Appellant the majority of the time. I have given no weight to the Order dated May 7, 2012 [giving custody to the wife] because it was obtained without notice to the Appellant and it did not reflect the true state of affairs which existed at that time as described by the Appellant, D, N, and the Former Spouse.
[15] The Appellant primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care and upbringing of his sons. He cooked for them; he did their laundry; and, he attended at their school to support them. It is my opinion that the Former Spouse also cared for her sons but they did not reside with her. They visited with her.
[16] I concluded that the Appellant was the only “eligible individual” for D and N for the period January 2012 to June 2013 and he was not a ‘shared custody parent” for them during this period.
[17] I have also concluded that the Appellant was not a “shared custody parent” for M for the period from January 2012 to April 2012. All parties agreed that M lived at the family home with the Appellant until May 2012. Thereafter, she lived with the Former Spouse. The Appellant was the only “eligible individual” for M for the period January 2012 to April 2012 inclusive. Thereafter, the Former Spouse was the only “eligible individual” for M.
[1] 2014 TCC 66.