Date: 19980114
Docket: Docket: T-2634-96
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
Paul Tse,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REED, J.:
[1] This is an appeal, by way of trial de novo, from a decision by a citizenship judge which found that the appellant had not fulfilled the residency requirements of the Citizenship Act.
[2] On June 16, 1990, the appellant, his wife and two children were granted landing. He immediately returned to Hong Kong for approximately two months to settle his affairs and to resign from his Hong Kong job. He returned to Canada and worked for about a year as an immigration consultant. He and his wife purchased a home in Canada in August, 1990. He returned to Hong Kong on September 1, 1991 to study law at the Hong Kong University, School of Professional and Continuing Education. He returned to Canada at the completion of that course for a three week period. He then returned to Hong Kong to complete a two year compulsory trainee program, which would allow him to apply to be admitted as a solicitor in Hong Kong. Apart from brief periods of time in Canada, he was in Hong Kong during almost the whole three year period of time.
[3] He was divorced in February 1993. His ex-wife and two children continued to reside in Canada and are now all Canadian citizens. He applied for citizenship on August 24, 1994. As of that date, as will be obvious from the above, he had been absent from Canada for a considerable period of time during the preceding four years.
[4] I must comment on some of the evidence. The appellant stated that during the period of time he was away from Canada, he telephoned his children on a daily basis. None of the telephone bills filed in evidence to support this assertion carry invoice dates that relate to the relevant period of time. Also, some of the membership cards he filed in support of his citizenship application carry either an irrelevant date or have had the date that was originally on the card altered. He made some statements when giving oral evidence that are not credible, e.g. his two children live with him when he is in Canada. The evidence on the record discloses that his wife was given custody of the children. Also, if the telephone invoices relate to his absences from Canada, as he claimed, they show that he was absent for at least the last three months of 1994, the first six months and the eighth month of 1995 and four months in the early part of 1996.
[5] It is difficult to understand why a person would study and work to become a solicitor in Hong Kong if they intend to establish residence in Canada.
[6] In any event, he gave evidence that he now works and resides in Canada, selling ocean products (e.g. lobsters, giant clams) to the Asian market. If after completing his course for admission as a Hong Kong solicitor, he did return to Canada and has since that time had been working and living in Canada, as he asserts, there is no reason he could not refile for citizenship. This would be more sensible than pursuing an appeal on the basis of the problematic record that exists.
[7] The evidence does not show that the appellant developed, during the relevant B.R.
period, the kind of attachment to Canada that is required to allow absences from the B.R. country to be counted as residence within it. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 14, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980114
Docket: T-2634-96
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
Paul Tse,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-2634-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: 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 |
| Paul Tse, |
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 13, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| BY: REED, J. |
DATED: JANUARY 14, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Stephen W. Green
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Stephen W. Green |
| GREEN AND SPIEGEL |
Barristers and Solicitors
Standard Life Centre
2200 - 121 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae