Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010522

Docket: T-1482-00

Neutral Citation : 2001 FCT 519

BETWEEN:

                                   SUNNY KUE YUEN LAI

                                                                                        Applicant

                                                - and -

                            THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                    AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                    Respondent

                                  REASONS FOR ORDER

TEITELBAUM, J.

[1]    This is an appeal (application) by Sunny Kue Yuen Lai to the Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division from a decision of a Citizenship Judge dated July 26, 2000 refusing the Appellant's application for Canadian citizenship.

[2]    The main reason for the Citizenship Judge for refusing the application for Citizenship was that it was the opinion of the Citizenship Judge that the Appellant could not meet the residence requirements of the Citizenship Act.


[3]    Immediately after I heard the submissions of both counsel, I informed counsel that I would allow the appeal.

[4]    The reason for allowing the appeal is that after a review of the written material and after considering the oral submissions of counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the Citizenship Judge erred in fact and in law in her decision of July 26, 2000.

[5]    The Appellant, his wife and two children obtained Landed Immigrant Status on July 15, 1994. They, at first, lived with their relatives until September 14, 1994, when they moved into their own home. The two children are full time students.

[6]    Both the Appellant's wife and his two children are citizens of Canada.

[7]    Before the Appellant's immigration to Canada, he worked as a merchandiser in Hong Kong. It is important to note that he terminated his employment in Hong Kong before his immigration to Canada and, after arriving in Canada in July of 1994 he looked for employment in merchandising or sales in Canada with companies such as Walmart and Sears but was unable to find work. He looked for work in Canada from July, 1994 to December, 1994.


[8]                The Appellant states, that after being unable to find work in Canada and knowing, that he had an obligation to support his family, he decided he had to return to Hong Kong to try to find work. He did find work as a Director of Export Operations for a Toy Manufacturer, Toytrade Creation Company Ltd. This company, Toytrade, is not the company for whom the Appellant had previously been working.

[9]                The Appellant was offered a two year employment contract. He negotiated an employment term to provide a four week no pay leave after every four months of employment. He was also provided with free staff housing. The Appellant has always returned home, to Calgary, to be with his wife and children during his four weeks off from work.

[10]            During his return home, the evidence is that he spent his time with his wife and children and, as much as he could, travelled in Canada to better familiarize himself with Canada.

[11]            I am satisfied that the above facts leads me to believe that the Appellant has satisfied the residence requirements of the Citizenship Act.


[12]            The Appellant came to Canada with the intention to remain in Canada. It is important, as an immigrant, to try to find work. This the Appellant tried to do but was unable to do so. There is no evidence to contradict what the Appellant states that he seriously tried to find work in Canada.

[13]            This, in itself, would not be sufficient to satisfy me that he fulfilled the residence requirement of the Act. In addition one must become "Canadianized". The Appellant returns to Canada every fifth month. He has been doing this since 1995. When he returns to Canada he remains with his wife and children and travels within Canada. Surely, spending this amount of time in Canada would have familiarized the Appellant with the rights and obligations of a Canadian citizen.

[14]            I am satisfied that it was always the intention of the Appellant to "learn" the ways of being a law abiding Canadian citizen and to have his family live and grow up in Canada.

[15]            The present appeal is allowed and it is recommended that the Appellant be granted his Canadian citizenship.

                                                                                                           

                                                                           "Max M. Teitelbaum"

                                                                                            J. F. C. C.

Calgary, Alberta

May 22, 2001               


                                               

                   FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20010522

Docket: T-1482-00

BETWEEN:

                           SUNNY KUE YUEN LAI

                                                                                  Applicant

                                           - and -


                 THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                            AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                              Respondent

                                                                                                                      

                          REASONS FOR ORDER

                                                                                                                      


                                                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                          TRIAL DIVISION

                                        NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                      T-1482-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      Sunny Kue Yuen Lai v. The Minister

of Citizenship and immigration           

PLACE OF HEARING:                                CALGARY, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                                  May 18, 2001

REASONS FOR ORDER BY TEITELBAUM, J.


DATED:                                                         May 22, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Ms. Dora Y. Lam, Q.C.                                                                      FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff                                                                       FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

GERMAN, FONG, ALBUS, LAM

CALGARY, Alberta                                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of

Canada                                                                                                FOR THE RESPONDENT

 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.