T-390-97
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
CORNELIS PIETER HOOFT
Appellant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on October 8, 1997, be filed to comply with s. 51 of the Federal Court Act.
Howard I. Wetston
Judge
Court File No. T-390-97
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N:
CORNELIS PIETER HOOFT
Applicant
- and -
CITIZENSHIP ACT
Respondent
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WETSTON
| HELD AT: The Federal Court, 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. |
DATE: October 8th, 1997.
REGISTRAR: R. CLAPHAM
REASONS FOR DECISION
A P P E A R A N C E S:
C.P. HOOFT, ESQ. The Applicant
P. LARGE, ESQ. Amicus Curiae
HIS LORDSHIP: It would appear to the Court that on application before the Citizenship Judge the applicant did bring to the Judge's attention a number of the same factors that were brought to my attention here today with the exception of one matter which causes some concern to the Court because of the nature in which the matter appears to have been handled.
What appears to be clear is that at the time of the application for citizenship on April 26th of 1995 the applicant applied along with his family, in particular his mother and father, for citizenship. That application went forward with the exception of his own, there being an approximately one year delay in the citizenship officials considering his application for citizenship because of a problem with his name on the application.
The application contained his full name which is Cornelis rather than the name that is used in his everyday life which is Kees. As such, rather than simply amending the application the official required the process to be commenced ab initio thereby Mr. Hooft lost approximately one year towards the residency requirements as required by the Citizenship Act. Prior to that the question is in 1994 whether or not he had established residency in Canada within the four-year period which would appear to have been the case since in the previous period he was a student at the University of Western Ontario and received his degree from that university.
The result of the requirement to commence the process again created a mathematical problem in that the Citizenship Judge felt that for that and other reasons Mr. Hooft did not meet the residency requirements under the Act. If the numerical requirements were met then there was no need, it would appear, to consider whether or not the applicant had established his central mode of living in mind and fact in Canada. As a result of the loss of the year and other factors the Citizenship Judge felt that mere intention alone to return to Canada as well as the failure to meet the numerical requirements under the Act resulted in deciding that Mr. Hooft's application for Canadian citizenship should not be approved.
This matter before the Court is de novo and as such it is the Court's responsibility to assess whether or not Mr. Hooft on the facts brought to the Court's attention has met the requirements for Canadian citizenship pursuant to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. On appeal before the Court was simply the question therefore whether or not the requirements of Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act had been met.
I have considered the evidence and I am satisfied that despite the administrative error which appears to have occurred or, error may be the wrong word, but administrative issue which arose in this matter, that on the facts of this case -- Mr. Hooft is a student. Obviously on the basis of the three factors he had established residence in Canada before 1994. He established that residence before leaving. He left with the intention to return to Canada. His home was Canada. He was taking international studies, and he clearly maintained ties with his family while he was away. His parents lived in Toronto, remained in Toronto and are both Canadian citizens.
On the basis of the facts before me I will allow the appeal.
CERTIFIED CORRECT,
Lennox T. Brown, F.I.P.S.
Verbatim Reporter