Further, the situation with his daughter, being 17 years of age at the time and being in a position where she could refuse to return to Ontario, was certainly a cause for concern that satisfies me the claimant was exercising his obligation to care for his daughter under s. 29(b).
De plus, la situation vécue par le prestataire par rapport à sa fille, alors âgée de 17 ans et en mesure de refuser de retourner en Ontario, constitue certes un point en litige qui me convainc que le prestataire avait l'obligation de prendre soin de sa fille, en vertu de l'article 29b) de la Loi.