Date: 20000707
Docket: T-1420-99
Ottawa, Ontario, July7, 2000
Before: Pinard J.
B E T W E E N:
HAZAR SENOUSSI,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's appeal from the decision by the citizenship judge Jeanine C. Beaubien on June 15, 1999 is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20000707
Docket: T-1420-99
B E T W E E N:
HAZAR SENOUSSI,
Plaintiff,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PINARD J.
[1] This appeal pursuant to s. 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 ("the Act") is from a decision of a citizenship judge who, on June 15, 1999, dismissed the plaintiff's citizenship application on the ground that she did not meet the residence requirements contained in s. 5(1)(c) of that Act.
[2] In Re Pourghasemi (1993), 19 Imm.L.R. (2d) 259, at 260, my brother Muldoon J. set out the objectives underlying that provision of the Act:
| . . . 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. One can observe Canadian society for all its virtues, decadence, values, dangers and freedoms, just as it is. That is little enough time in which to become Canadianized. 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. If the criterion be applied to some citizenship candidates, it ought to apply to all. So, indeed, it was applied by Madam Justice Reed in Re Koo, T-20-92, on December 3, 1992 [reported 19 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1], in different factual circumstances, of course. |
(See also the judgments of the Federal Court Trial Division in Re Afandi (November 6, 1998), T-2476-97, M.C.I. v. Kam Biu Ho (November 24, 1998), T-19-98, M.C.I. v. Chen Dai (January 6, 1999), T-996-98, M.C.I. v. Chung Shun Paul Ho (March 1, 1999), T-1683-95, M.C.I. v. Fai Sophia Lam (April 28, 1999), T-1524-98, M.C.I. v. Su-Chen Chiu (June 9, 1999), T-1892-98, M.C.I. v. Chi Cheng Andy Sun (June 6, 2000), T-2329-98, Oi Hung Vera Hui v. M.C.I. (June 6, 2000), T-1338-99 and Martin Long Ying Lo v. M.C.I. (June 6, 2000), T-959-99).
[3] This Court has held that a correct interpretation of s. 5(1)(c) of the Act does not require a person to be physically present in Canada throughout the 1,095-day period of residence prescribed when there are special and exceptional circumstances. However, I consider that actual presence in Canada is still the most relevant and most important factor to be taken into account in determining whether a person has "resided" in Canada within the meaning of this provision. As I have said many times, an extended absence from Canada, though temporary, during this minimum period of time is contrary to the spirit of the Act which already allows a person legally admitted to Canada as a permanent resident not to reside there for one of the four years preceding the date of his or her citizenship application.
[4] Consequently, since in the case at bar the plaintiff was absent from Canada for over half of the four years preceding her citizenship application I consider, although there are reasons of a family nature which largely explain this lengthy absence, that the residence requirements mentioned in s. 5(1)(c) of the Act have not been met.
[5] Consequently, despite the sympathy aroused by the plaintiff's situation, her appeal must be dismissed.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 7, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1420-99
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Hazar Senoussi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 14, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PINARD J.
DATED: July 7, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Norton Segal FOR THE APPLICANT
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Phillips, Friedman, Kotler FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario