Date: 19980420
Docket: T-445-96
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
WING-KEE FRANCIS CHOW,
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 January 30, 1996, refusing his application for citizenship on the basis that he did not meet the requirement of residence for a Canadian citizen under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. The issue is whether or not the applicant satisfied the residence requirements enunciated in that paragraph of the Act.
[2] The appellant admits that there is a shortage of 853 days with respect to meeting the minimum requirements of three years' physical presence in a four-year period.
[3] Out of the numerous cases which indicate that this does not preclude a finding of residence of Canada, in Re Papadogiorgakis (1978), 88 DLR (3d) 243, Associate Chief Justice Thurlow set out three requirements to meet the definition of residence under subsection 5(1) of the Act:
| 1. the appellant must establish residency here; |
| 2. the appellant must keep a place of domicile in Canada; and |
| 3. when the appellant leaves Canada, he must have intention to return to Canada. |
[4] In Re Hung, [1996] F.C.J. No. 1401 (T.D.), Mr. Justice Dubé stated that the important aspect in residency is where the person returns after work:
| The most eloquent indicia of residency is the establishment of a person and his family in the country, coupled with a manifest intention of making the establishment their permanent home. |
[5] The appellant's only residence is in Vancouver, where he has resided with his wife and family for a period of eight years. His wife and his two children are all Canadian citizens. He neither owns nor rents property outside Canada. The appellant has his bank accounts here. He has established a Canadian business, located in Vancouver and employing four people, which is primarily involved in imports and exports to and from China and Southeast Asia. The appellant has joined an organization called SUCCESS which is designed to assist immigrants from China to integrate into Canadian society.
[6] I am satisfied on the facts before me that the appellant does meet the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act and has residence in Canada, as required thereunder.
[7] The appeal is allowed.
W.P. McKeown
J U D G E
O T T A W A, Ontario
April 20, 1998.