Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971219

Docket: T-895-96

     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

     THI LANG NGUYEN

     Appellant.

     Docket: T-896-96

     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

     TAN TRIEN CHAU

     Appellant.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JOYAL, J.

[1]      In these two appeals, heard jointly in Toronto on November 26, 1997, the applications for Canadian citizenship were refused by the Citizenship Judge on grounds that the applicants had failed to meet the conditions imposed under paras. 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act ("the Act"). Under these provisions, an applicant must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of the two official languages, as well as a knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.

[2]      The time lag between the decision of the Citizenship Judge and the hearing of an appeal before the Federal Court is often sufficient for the applicant to bone up in these areas and effectively satisfy this Court that the required knowledge has been acquired and that the applicant may be admitted to citizenship.

[3]      In the matters before me, however, the threshold of knowledge imposed has not been met by the applicants. This is unfortunate, because they would otherwise make good Canadian citizens. It is quite obvious that there is a conjuncture between a lack of knowledge of one of the official languages and a lack of knowledge of Canada, each undermining the other. Clearly, it is difficult, if not impossible, for an applicant to answer questions relating to knowledge of Canada when he or she cannot understand the language in which the question is put.

[4]      There is no doubt that the applicants will need help if they are to apply again for citizenship and meet the tests imposed by the statute. They know what Canada requires of them, and are now aware of support services and training resources available to help them meet these requirements. Hopefully, in a short while, their knowledge will be such that they may be granted their coveted Canadian citizenship papers.

[5]      For the record, however, the appeals must be denied. So went my Order in each of the files on November 26, 1997.

                                 L-Marcel Joyal

    

                                 J U D G E

O T T A W A, Ontario

December 19, 1997