Date: 20010118
Docket: 1999-4805-IT-I
BETWEEN:
LYNDA PUTZLOCHER,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
For the Appellant: The Appellant herself
Counsel for the Respondent: Tracey Harwood-Jones
____________________________________________________________________
Reasons for Judgment
(Delivered orally from the Bench at Regina, Saskatchewan,
on November 2, 2000)
McArthur J.
[1]
This appeal is from an assessment for the period from February
1998 to January 1999. The Minister of National Revenue determined
that the Appellant was no longer the eligible individual with
respect to child tax benefits for her son Brett, born on May 12,
1983. I have no difficulty finding that the Appellant was the
parent who primarily fulfilled the responsibility for the care
and upbringing of Brett. The following Minister's assumptions
of fact for the most part were not disputed.
[2]
The Appellant is the parent of Brett born May 12, 1983. The
Appellant and Brett's father, Dave, were divorced on or about
December 6, 1995 and by Order at that time, the Saskatchewan
Court of Queen's Bench granted the Appellant custody of
Brett. By further Order dated December 3, 1997, the Order of
December 6, 1995 was varied to grant joint custody of Brett to
the Appellant and the father. The Order provided that with
consultation between the Appellant and the father, Brett could
choose to live with either parent. Brett commenced living
part-time with his father in November 1997.
[3]
The Respondent did not seriously cross-examine the Appellant and
her witnesses, called no witnesses on its behalf and made no
submissions. From this, I draw the inference that the
Minister had no interest in pursuing its original position.
[4]
The issue boils down to whether the father or the Appellant was
the primary caregiver from February 1998 to January 1999. The
Appellant gave evidence together with her spiritual advisor, Rev.
Don Bolen, and her two oldest sons, Dwayne and Shayne. It does
not serve a purpose to review the evidence in detail. I have no
doubt that the Appellant is a very fine person and mother and
that she was the primary caregiver during the relevant period.
Brett was in school during this hearing and of course did not
give evidence. His two brothers hold their mother in highest
regard and look on their father as a manipulator, if not a
scoundrel.
[5]
Apparently, 14 year old Brett opted to live with his father
during the relevant period because his father imposed no rules,
curfew or discipline and showed no interest in his son. His
mother took care of Brett's bodily and emotional needs and,
while he slept more often at his father's residence, he spent
more of his active hours with his mother and she was the primary
caregiver. The appeal is allowed with costs to the Appellant set
at $300.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of January, 2001.
"C.H. McArthur"
J.T.C.C.
Email this Content