Fannon v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2012 DTC 5130 [at at 7247], 2012 FC 876, aff'd 2013 DTC 5088 [at 5975], 2013 FCA 99 -- summary under Subsection 15(1)

The taxpayer's son did not reside with him when he incurred expenses in caring for his son, and therefore the expenses were not "child care expenses" under s. 63(3). Near J. confirmed that s. 63(3) is not discriminatory under the Charter, as it does not perpetuate a disadvantage by perpetuation of prejudice or stereotypes. The mere deprivation of a financial benefit that would be available to parents with custody of their children is not enough to establish discrimination against parents without custody.