Docket: 2008-938(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CHANTALE MONIQUE MOÏSE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Appeal heard on March 30, 2009 at Ottawa, Canada
Before: The Honourable
Justice G. A. Sheridan
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Julian Malone
|
JUDGMENT
The appeal from the redetermination made under the Income
Tax Act with respect to the Child Tax Benefit and the Goods and Services
Tax Credit for the period July 2006 to June 2008, is dismissed in accordance
with the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of April, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
Citation: 2009TCC187
Date: 20090409
Docket: 2008-938(IT)I
BETWEEN:
CHANTALE MONIQUE MOÏSE,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sheridan, J.
[1] The issue in
this appeal is whether the Appellant, Chantale Moïse, was entitled to receive
the Child Tax Benefit and the Goods and Services Tax Credit for the period July
2006 to June 2008. The Appellant conceded that she was not entitled to the
Child Tax Benefit for the period July 2007 to June 2008.
[2] The Minister of
National Revenue determined that she was not the “eligible individual” as
defined in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act because her son did not
reside with her and she did not primarily fulfill the responsibility for his
care during the periods in dispute.
[3] At the hearing,
counsel for the Respondent correctly raised a preliminary objection to the
Appellant’s having included in her appeal a request for relief in respect of
her claim under the Universal Child Care Benefit Act on the basis that
this Court does not have jurisdiction over such appeals. Upon understanding this,
the Appellant effectively withdrew that aspect of her appeal.
[4] Turning then, to
the issue of her entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit, the
Appellant has the onus of proving wrong the assumptions upon which the Minister
based his decision. She testified at hearing; the father of the child,
Kristoffer Howes, was called by the Respondent.
[5] My impression in
listening to their evidence is that they both care very much for their little
boy and that all three of them have had their difficulties since the breakdown
of the marriage. Their evidence was consistent that they had agreed to joint
custody of their son and that, in ideal circumstances, each was to have him in
his or her care 50% of the time. The Appellant testified that during the period
in question, she was overwhelmed with problems that limited her ability to live
up to this ideal. In June 2006, she asked Mr. Howes to take their son into his
care until she was able to resume a full share of her responsibility. Mr.
Howes’ evidence was to the same effect. Their evidence was that, depending in
whose care their son was at any given moment, they were both more or less
equally involved in seeing to his medical needs, taking him to day care,
providing a room for him in their respective homes and buying him clothes and
toys.
[6] Given that the
child was more often with his father than the Appellant during the period in
dispute, the Appellant has not satisfied me that the Minister was wrong in
making his redetermination; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 9th day of April, 2009.
“G. A. Sheridan”
CITATION: 2009TCC187
COURT FILE NO.: 2008-938(IT)I
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHANTALE MONIQUE MOÏSE AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Canada
DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Justice G. A. Sheridan
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 9, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The Appellant herself
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Julian Malone
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content