Date: 19990106
Docket: T-996-98
Between :
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
- and -
CHEN DAI
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] This is an appeal filed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, (the Act) of the decision of Marguerite Ford, Citizenship Judge, rendered and communicated to the respondent by way of a letter dated March 18, 1998. The appellant maintains that the respondent had failed to accumulate the number of days for residency required by paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[2] The respondent, a citizen of Taiwan, was born in the People's Republic of China on July 13, 1946. He acquired permanent residence status in Canada on March 13, 1994. During the period of four years preceding his application for Canadian citizenship, which is dated July 25, 1997, the respondent had only been physically present in Canada for 191 days and was short by 904 of the minimum requirement of 1,095 days (three out of four years' residence).
[3] The residency requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act are the following:
| 5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who [ . . . ] (c) has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence, has not ceased since such admission to be a permanent resident pursuant to section 24 of the Immigration Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner:
(Emphasis added.) |
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois : [ . . . ] c) a été légalement admise au Canada à titre de résident permanent, n'a pas depuis perdu ce titre en application de l'article 24 de la Loi sur l'immigration, et a, dans les quatre ans qui ont précédé la date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins trois ans en tout, la durée de sa résidence étant calculée de la manière suivante:
(Mon emphase.) |
[4] My colleague Mr. Justice Muldoon, in Re Pourghasemi (1993), 19 Imm.L.R. (2d) 259 at 260 sets out the underlying objectives of this 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 (1992), 59 F.T.R. 27, 19 Imm.L.R. (2d) 1], in different factual circumstances, of course. |
(See also Re Chan (1998), 144 F.T.R. 117 and M.C.I. v. Kam Biu Ho (November 24, 1998), T-19-98 (F.C.T.D.).)
[5] Assuming that a proper interpretation of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act does not require physical presence in Canada for the entire 1,095 days of residence prescribed therein when there are special and exceptional circumstances, I consider, however, that actual presence in Canada remains the most relevant and crucial factor to be taken into account for establishing whether or not a person was "resident" in Canada within the meaning of the provision. As I have stated on many occasions, too long of an absence from Canada, albeit a temporary one, during that minimum period of time, as in the present case, is contrary to the spirit of the Act, which already allows a person who has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence not to reside in Canada during one of the four years immediately preceding the date of that person's application for citizenship.
[6] Therefore, given the prolonged absences of the respondent from Canada, in the present case, I find that the Citizenship Judge's conclusion that the former met the residency requirements of the Act is totally unreasonable and that such conclusion is the result of an erroneous application of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[7] Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the decision of Marguerite Ford, Citizenship Judge, dated March 18, 1998, is quashed on the ground that at the time the respondent applied for Canadian citizenship, he did not meet the residency requirement of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 6, 1999