Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980904


Docket: T-2674-97

BETWEEN:

                 IN THE MATTER OF the Citizenship Act,
                 R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
                 AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge
                 AND IN THE MATTER OF
                 THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                 AND IMMIGRATION

     Appellant

     - and

                 SHAN-SHAN SHANNON HSU

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REED, J.

[1]      The Minister appeals a decision of a Citizenship Judge that found the respondent to be resident in Canada for the required 1095 days (see paragraphs 5(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Citizenship Act) despite extensive physical absences during the relevant period of time. The total number of days of physical absence is not as great as originally calculated by the Citizenship Judge; however, it is extensive.

[2]      The respondent chose not to appear as a witness on this hearing de novo, to give evidence in support of her claim to have established residence in Canada and to have continued that residence despite the extensive absences during the relevant period of time. She is presently out of the country, and personal reasons kept her from attending. The only evidence before me, then, is the documentary record that was before the Citizenship Judge and two other documents that her counsel submitted to the Court, and to which counsel for the appellant did not object despite the unorthodox method of putting them into evidence.

[3]      The evidence before me is simply insufficient to allow me to conclude that the respondent established residence in Canada in January 1, 1994 and continued to be resident here despite her physical absences. The respondent can, of course, reapply if she has now fulfilled the residency requirement. Her January 11, 1994 application was premature.

[4]      The decision of the Citizenship Judge, wherein the application for citizenship by the respondent was granted, will be set aside. In view of the fact that the respondent did not consider the hearing important enough to attend and consequently caused a waste of time and money to the Court and to the appellant, she should be required to pay the appellant costs of the appeal.

                             (Sgd.) "B. Reed"

                                 Judge

Vancouver, British Columbia

September 4, 1998

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.