Date: 19981106
Docket: T-2375-97
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
NAWAL RAJA EL SABBAGHE
Appellant
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.:
[1] The appellant appeals a decision by a Citizenship Judge dated September 16, 1997, which refused to approve the appellant's application for citizenship. The refusal was based on the ground that the appellant did not have an adequate knowledge of one of the two official languages of Canada, as required by paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, and that she did not have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, as required by paragraph 5(1)(e).
[2] For at least the last five months, the appellant has been taking lessons in English, four days a week. It is clear she has changed from lacking any facility in the language to the position she demonstrated before me, where despite the unfamiliar and stressful situation of the courtroom, she understood at least part of what was said to her and could respond to some of it.
[3] With respect to the appellant's knowledge of Canada and the rights and obligations of citizens, she could not understand questions relating thereto without very extensive assistance from her son as interpreter.
[4] The jurisprudence does not contain an express standard to be applied in assessing what constitutes an "adequate" ability in one of Canada's two official languages, or what constitutes an "adequate" knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. In Re Abdul - Hamid, [1979] 1 F.C. 600 (T.D.), the Court held that the language requirements and knowledge requirements were disjunctive. The Court noted that the appellant in that case could discuss his work, his family and his background in English with ease, albeit with an accent, and that he had an ability to comprehend and express himself in English in a competent fashion insofar as his personal experiences were concerned. At the same time the appellant had difficulty either understanding or expressing himself in response to questions concerning his knowledge of the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. He was allowed to express himself through an interpreter.
[5] In Re Adolfo D'Intino, T-819-78 (July 5, 1998), however, the Court took the position that the language and knowledge requirements were related. The appellant's request that he be allowed to give his evidence through an interpreter was denied. The judge wrote:
| An adequate knowledge of English presupposes that its possessor shall be able to comprehend simple and straightforward questions on subjects which are within his knowledge and to respond orally thereto in that language by making intelligible answers. Obviously an applicant for citizenship should have an appreciation of the responsibilities and privileges thereof and these are subjects which are essential to be within the applicant's knowledge. They are conditions precedent to the grant of citizenship. |
[6] As I read the provisions of the Citizenship Act, I understand them to require that an applicant for citizenship have sufficient facility in English and sufficient knowledge of Canada's system of government (the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship) to allow him or her to participate therein (e.g. to exercise the privilege of voting) in an independent and meaningful way. It is for that purpose that an ability in one of the two official languages and knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizens are required to be "adequate". I find this requires at least a reasonable level of comprehension of the language in either its written or spoken form and a limited ability to express oneself.
[7] This appellant is in the unfortunate position of many landed immigrants who are not young when they come to this country. It is more difficult to learn a second language as we become older. Also, as the mother of several children who has never worked outside the home, the necessity to learn English and her opportunity to interact with persons who speak only English will have been limited. In the circumstances, I think it is appropriate that the appellant's application be referred back for reconsideration by a citizenship judge as to whether a ministerial waiver should be recommended, particularly in the light of the efforts she has made recently to improve both her English and her knowledge of Canada.
[8] As will appear from what has been said above, unfortunately, I cannot conclude that the appellant possesses sufficient comprehension of the language for me to conclude that she meets the requirements of the Act. At the same time, I hope she will continue her efforts to learn English and to learn about Canada and as I have indicated her application will be referred back for reconsideration of a possible waiver recommendation.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
November 6, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-2375-97
| 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 |
| NAWAL RAJA EL SABBAGHE |
Appellant
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED J.
DATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1998
APPEARANCES: Ms. Nawal Raja El Sabbaghe
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nawal Raja El Sabbaghe
| 3050 Pharmacy Avenue #1805 |
| Scarborough, Ontario |
| M1W 2N7 |
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981106
Docket: T-2375-97
Between:
| 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 |
| NAWAL RAJA EL SABBAGHE |
Appellant
REASONS FOR ORDER