Date: 20001120
Docket: T-2101-99
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
- and -
WAI-CHEUNG CHAN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
NADON, J.
[1] This is an appeal by the Minister from a decision of Citizenship Judge Stuart Hodgson dated October 4, 1999 approving the Respondent's application for citizenship.
[2] The Respondent, born on June 18, 1976, is a citizen of BDTC, Hong Kong. He was landed in Canada on December 11, 1994 and applied for citizenship on September 30, 1998. From September 23, 1994 to September 23, 1998 the Respondent was absent from Canada 890 days. Thus, he was present in the country for 507 days in the 4 years prior to the date of his application, leaving him well short of the number of days required under section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, which reads as follows:
| 5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who (c) has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence, has not ceased since such admission to be a permanent resident pursuant to section 24 of the Immigration Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner: (i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and (ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence; |
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois : c) a été légalement admise au Canada à titre de résident permanent, n'a pas depuis perdu ce titre en application de l'article 24 de la Loi sur l'immigration, et a, dans les quatre ans qui ont précédé la date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins trois ans en tout, la durée de sa résidence étant calculée de la manière suivante : (i) un demi-jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada avant son admission à titre de résident permanent, (ii) un jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada après son admission à titre de résident permanent; |
[3] In my view, this appeal must succeed. In Re Paurghasemi,1 Muldoon J. explained the meaning of section 5(1)(c) as follows:
In drawing a purposive interpretation of the statutory language it should be asked: Why did Parliament prescribe at lease 3 years of Canadian residence in the 4 years immediately before applying for citizenship?
It is very clear that the purpose of para. 5(1)(c) is to insure that everyone who is granted precious Canadian citizenship has become, or at least has been compulsorily presented with the everyday opportunity to become, "Canadianized." This happens by "rubbing elbows" with Canadians in shopping malls, corner stores, libraries, concert halls, auto repair shops, pubs, cabarets, elevators, churches, synagogues, mosques and temples -- in a word wherever one can meet and converse with Canadians during the prescribed three years...If a citizenship candidate misses that qualifying experience, then Canadian citizenship can be conferred, in effect, on a person who is still a foreigner in experience, social adaptation, and often in thought and outlook. ...
(emphasis added)
...The statute does not direct the court to evince sentimentality in order to evade, or to defy the statutory requirement for residence. Perhaps because of misunderstanding of this Court's previous jurisprudence, applicants seem to be advised to keep Canadian bank accounts, magazine subscriptions, medicare cards, lodgings, furniture, other property and good intentions to meet the statutory criterion, in a word, everything except really residing among Canadians in Canada for three out of the previous four years, as Parliament prescribes. One may ask so what if the would be citizen be away at school or university? What is the urgency? If the candidate cannot find an adequate school or university in Canada, let him or her study abroad and then come back to Canada in order to comply with the residence requirement....
...So those who would throw in their lot with Canadians by becoming citizens must first throw in their lot with Canadians by residing among Canadians, in Canada, during three of the preceding four years, in order to Canadianize themselves. It is not something one can do while abroad, for Canadian life and society exist only in Canada and nowhere else.(emphasis added)
[4] I agree entirely with Muldoon J. that an applicant for Canadian citizenship cannot meet the residency requirements of section 5(1)(c) while living abroad on a permanent or quasi permanent basis.
[5] It is clear that the Respondent herein does not meet the requirements of section 5(1)(c). Consequently, Judge Hodgson erred in concluding as he did that the Respondent qualified for Canadian citizenship.
[6] This appeal is therefore allowed and Judge Hodgson's decision dated October 4, 1999 is set aside.
(Sgd.) "Marc Nadon"
Judge
VANCOUVER, British Columbia
November 20, 2000
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above document is a true copy of the original filed of record in the Registry of the Federal Court of Canada the __________ day of __________________________ A.D. 20________
Dated this _____ day of _________________ 20_____
_____________________________
Julie A. Gordon, Registry Officer
1
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET: T-2101-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MCI |
v.
Wai-Cheung Chan
| PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia |
| DATE OF HEARING: November 17, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF NADON, J.
| DATED: November 20, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Ms. Rama Sood For the Applicant |
| Mr. Wai Cheung Chan For the Respondent (on his own behalf) |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
| General of Canada For the Applicant |