BETWEEN:
and
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Appeal heard on June 14, 2019, at Montréal, Quebec
and written submissions
Appearances:
JUDGMENT
The appeal of the redetermination made under the Income Tax Act for the 2013 base year is dismissed, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
BETWEEN:
QIN JIANG,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1]
The issue in this case is to determine whether, following the custody order issued by the Superior Court of Québec in December 2014, Ms. Jiang was still eligible to receive the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) for her children.
[2]
Ms. Jiang and her former spouse have three children. The couple separated in June 2014. The first custody order, issued in June 2014, and the second custody order, issued in August 2014, both provided for shared custody of the children. The third custody order, issued in December 2014, awarded sole custody of the children to their father.
[3]
Following the order of December 2014, the children lived with their father, and their mother had a new residence nearby. Ms. Jiang continued to be involved in the lives of her three children. The children stayed with their mother from Friday to Sunday every other week. In addition, her daughter spent the Thursday alone with her mother. Since Ms. Jiang lived nearby, she could also have her children over for dinner twice a week. Sometimes, her daughter would visit her or sleep over at her home more often than the access privileges provided.
[4]
Ms. Jiang continued to be involved in her children's health care and education; she also provided for some of their other needs. She also brought them to the hairdresser and bought them certain things they needed.
[5]
Although Ms. Jiang is a very devoted and involved mother, in the December 2014 order of the Superior Court of Québec, the children's father was granted sole custody and their mother was granted access privileges. As a result of that order, after that date, Ms. Jiang could not be considered an "eligible individual"
within the meaning of section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act and section 6302 of the Income Tax Regulations, since she did not meet the first two requirements of the definition, set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Those paragraphs apply to the individual with whom the children reside and the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for their care and upbringing.
[6]
The relevant sections of the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Regulations are attached as an appendix to these reasons.
[7]
For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 3rd day of September 2019.
"Patrick Boyle"
Boyle J.
Appendix
|
|
|
|
CITATION:
|
|||
COURT FILE NO.:
|
|||
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
|||
PLACE OF HEARING:
|
|||
DATE OF HEARING:
|
|||
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
|||
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
|
|||
For the appellant:
|
The appellant herself
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Emmanuel Jilwan
|
Name:
|
|
Firm:
|
[BLANK]
|
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
|