Date: 19980923
Docket: T-2002-97
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
CARRIE KAR YEE HUI,
| Appellant. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RICHARD, A.C.J.
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Citizenship Judge, dated July 22, 1997, wherein the Judge did not approve the appellant's application for a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that she failed to meet the residence requirement contained in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[2] The appellant, a citizen of Hong Kong, applied for citizenship on July 19, 1996. She was lawfully admitted into Canada as a permanent resident on January 30, 1992, along with her parents and siblings. She moved into an apartment with her parents in Canada.
[3] During the period from July 19, 1992 to April 23, 1994 she was absent on business in Hong Kong and Singapore for all but 39 days. In that period she returned to Canada at any one time for 7, 13, 10 and 9 days. Her absences from Canada during the period of May 1994 to July 1996 for business purposes were far less frequent and lengthy. However, during the entire period of four years immediately preceding her application for citizenship she was absent from Canada for 674 days and present in Canada for 787 days. She is therefore 308 days short of 1095 days required by the Citizenship Act.
[4] The appellant contends that she became established in Canada during the 5 1/2 months following her arrival in January 1992 and that her absences from Canada, totalling 674 days amounted only to temporary stays. She was engaged in helping her brother develop business opportunities in Hong Kong and Singapore and resided in hotels or with her grandmother during her absences. She also relied on indicia of residence such as a Canadian bank account, payment of taxes in Canada, purchase of a car and health coverage. She acquired a residence in joint tenancy with her father in 1996 and followed some courses in Canada.
[5] The jurisprudence establishes that actual presence in Canada throughout the full period of 1095 days is not required. However, the applicant for citizenship is required to demonstrate that he or she has established a residence in Canada and has maintained such residence.
[6] Based on the evidence before me, the absences of the appellant from Canada during the period of July 1992 to April 1994 were not temporary in nature. During that period she was not returning home but visiting. Based on my appreciation of the evidence she did not centralize her mode of existence in Canada until later and, in any event, no earlier than the period following April 1994.
[7] The appeal is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "John D. Richard"
A.C.J.
Vancouver, British Columbia
September 23, 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-2002-97
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
CARRIE KAR YEE HUI,
| Appellant. |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF RICHARD, A.C.J.
dated September 23, 1998
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. Alex Stojicevic Solicitor for the Appellant |
| McCrea & Associates |
102 - 1012 Beach Avenue
Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 1T7
| Mr. Bruce Harwood Amicus Curiae |
| Watson, Goepel, Maledy |
P.O. Box 49096
3023 - 595 Burrard St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V7X 1G4