Eliyin v. The Queen, 2014 DTC 1120 [at at 3294], 2014 TCC 125 -- summary under Eligible Individual

By services, 28 November, 2015

The taxpayer and his wife applied from India for immigration visas in 2004, which were granted in 2010. The taxpayer's wife and mother died shortly before his immigration, so he decided to keep his son in the Indian boarding school he attended, in order to avoid disrupting his son's education while establishing himself in Canada.

Based on Charafeddine, Hogan J found that the son resided with the taxpayer, so that the taxpayer eligible for Canada Child Tax Benefits. He stated (at para. 22):

[T]he appellant and [his son] would have been living together during the period at issue were it not for the unforeseen death of the Appellant's wife... . I do not believe that the legislative intent behind the residency requirement was to exclude otherwise eligible families who have had to adapt to unfortunate circumstances.

Topics and taglines
Tagline
son in India "resided with" Canadian taxpayer
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
333836
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Jhanji v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2014 DTC 1120 [at 3294], 2014 TCC 125 (Informal Procedure) <strong>[son in India \"resided with\" Canadian taxpayer]</strong>",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}