Although only the younger child in Vaughan was the court's «first
consideration» (being just under 18), the Court of Appeal strongly disapproved of the district judge's description of him as the only relevant child: «Such was a piece of shorthand which I myself would not have
used... it by no means follows that the interests of adult children undergoing further education are
irrelevant to enquiries of this sort... it would be reasonable for the wife to buy a house with three bedrooms... even if they were unlikely to live there full - time.»
(Whether or not you received the benefits is an entirely
irrelevant consideration... the deduction can be
used even if you applied for these benefits and ICBC refused to pay... click here to read Sovani v. Jin, a case where almost $ 100,000 in damages were deducted from the jury's verdict).