Date: 20000119
Docket: T-1787-98
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
- and -
SARDEV KAUR DHILLON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, January 18, 2000)
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicant has appealed from a decision of a citizenship judge dated July 15, 1998. In that decision, the citizenship judge concluded that the respondent had met the requirements for citizenship in subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29.
[2] The respondent was born in India in 1931. On July 31, 1991, she arrived in Canada as a permanent resident with her husband and four children. Following her arrival in Canada, the respondent made two trips, one to India for a period of one year and seven months and another to India and Malaysia for five months.
[3] In support of her application for citizenship, the respondent filed a letter from the Ministry of Health in Ontario indicating that she had a health card since August 1991. She also submitted photocopies of her husband's health card, his social insurance card, his Bay credit card, a bank statement in his name and his 1997 income tax return. No other documentation was filed, save and except for the passports of the respondent and her husband.
[4] The reasons of the citizenship judge consist of a standard printed form to which brief handwritten details were added. The citizenship judge concluded, among other things, that the respondent was 292 days short of the requisite 1095 days. The citizenship judge noted that the trips made by the respondent were to sell property in India and to visit a son.
[5] In Minister of Citizenship v. Lau, T-1207-98 (December 15, 1999) (F.C.T.D), I concluded that the standard of review of a decision of a citizenship judge should be close to the correctness end of the spectrum, with "some slight deference" to the decision.
[6] During the course of the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that the citizenship judge had erred in law in concluding that the respondent had centralized her mode of living in Canada. I agree with that submission. A review of the evidence in the record indicates that there was simply nothing to establish that the respondent had centralized her mode of living in Canada, save and except for the fact that she had a health card in Ontario and lived here with her son for certain periods of time. The reasons of the citizenship judge do not refer to or provide details of evidence adduced at the hearing, if any, by the respondent. Given the absence of any documentary evidence in the record to support the finding of residency, the standard printed form reasons of the citizenship judge are therefore wholly and completely inadequate.
[7] For these reasons, I have concluded that the citizenship judge erred in law in finding that the respondent had satisfied the residency requirements in subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act.
[8] The appeal is allowed. The decision of the citizenship judge dated July 15, 1998 is quashed.
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
January 19, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-1787-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
- and -
SARDEV KAUR DHILLON
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McGILLIS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000
| APPEARANCES: Ms. Geraldine MacDonald |
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Sardev Kaur Dhillon |
| The Defendant on Her Own Behalf |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Sardev Kaur Dhillon |
| 100 Golfhaven |
| Scarborough, Ontario |
| M1G 2E3 |
| The Defendant on Her Own Behalf |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000119
Docket: T-1787-98
Between:
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Plaintiff
- and -
SARDEV KAUR DHILLON
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT