The taxpayer gave Jewish Family and Children's Services ("the Agency") temporary guardianship of his son in order to address his son's behavioural problems. The Agency placed the son in various foster homes and then a residential treatment centre. In determining that the son was not an eligible dependant during the time spent in the Agency's care, the trial judge found that the son did not reside with the taxpayer for that period.
The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings. The Agency had demonstrable control over the son's place of residence. Pelletier J.A. also remarked at para. 8 that "during his stay at the centre, the son's weekend visits with his father were just that, visits, and were not sufficient to re-establish residence with his father. The same is true of his 2 week stay with his father during his period of suspension from the Centre."