The taxpayer's children were abducted by her husband in Lebannon, and were being held there while the taxpayer tried to effect their return to Canada. At issue was whether the children "resided" in Canada and whether the taxpayer was the one who "primarily [fulfilled] the responsibility for [their] care and upbringing" as per s. 122.6.
Sheridan J. concluded that both criteria were met. Finding that the taxpayer "resided" with her children was appropriate, given that (para. 16):
The legislative objective of putting financial resources in the hands of the parent upon whom the children are dependent for their care and well being must also be respected.
She also stated that "[t]here is something fundamentally flawed with the notion that children wrongfully detained in a foreign country can be 'settled' there" (para. 8). On the same reasoning, the taxpayer was also resident in Canada for the year she spent in Lebannon trying to recover her Children.
The taxpayer was primarily responsible for the children, despite the husband's conduct precluding the taxpayer from caring for the children in any of the ways listed in s. 6302 of the Regulations except for paras. (b) and (h). Sheridan J. ruled that, in the extraordinary circumstances of the case, this was enough to make the taxpayer primarily responsible for the children.