Date: 19980420
Docket: T-42-97
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
KIN FAT LAW,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the Bench
on March 17, 1998, as edited)
MCKEOWN J.
[1] This matter came before me at Toronto on March 17, 1998. The appellant appeals the decision of a Citizenship Court Judge, dated December 18, 1996, refusing his application for Canadian citizenship on the basis that he did not have an adequate knowledge of English or French in order to qualify for citizenship, pursuant to subsection 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act.
[2] The issue is whether or not the appellant has sufficient knowledge of the English language or French language according to subsection 14 of the Citizenship Regulations, which proscribes the criteria for determining whether or not an appellant has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. The appellant's vocabulary in English or in French must be appropriate for the conduct of non-professional activities that can be reasonably expected to involve contact with the general public in either of these languages. The appellant must comprehend, in English or in French, simple spoken statements and questions in the past, present and future tenses, and be able to convey accurately, in either of these languages, simple information with respect to past, present and future situations.
[3] The Citizenship Judge also declined to make a recommendation for the exercise of discretion under subsection 5(3) of the Act to grant citizenship on compassionate grounds or under subsection 5(4) for reasons of special hardship. The Citizenship Judge decided there were no circumstances which justified her making a recommendation pursuant to 15(1) of the Citizenship Act.
[4] The appellant is married and has two children. He had difficulties with the questions that were put to him and was unable to answer a majority of the questions. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that he now meets the requirements of subsection 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act.
[5] The appeal is dismissed.
W.P. McKeown
J U D G E
O T T A W A, Ontario
April 20, 1998.