Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application brought under rule 300(c) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, in the form of an appeal as set out in subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 (the Act), from the decision of citizenship judge Arthur Miki, dated March 30, 2006, wherein he denied the applicant’s application for Canadian citizenship.
[2] For the following reasons, I am satisfied that this application for judicial review should be denied.
BACKGROUND
[3] Mrs. Veenita Kakar (the applicant) obtained permanent resident status and immigrated to Canada from India in 1970. She remained in Canada, without applying to obtain her citizenship, until 1983, at which time she followed her husband, a Canadian citizen, who relocated to India for business purposes.
[4] Mrs. Kakar submitted her application for citizenship in 2003 and appeared before citizenship judge Arthur Miki (the citizenship judge) in Edmonton in December of 2004. In a letter dated March 30, 2006, the citizenship judge denied her application on the ground that she had not met the residency requirement.
[5] There is no dispute that during the four years prior to applying for citizenship on August 9, 2003, the applicant was present in Canada for 664 days and absent for 746 days, a shortfall of 431 days from the required 1095 days of residence in Canada, as per paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
[6] Did the citizenship judge make a reviewable error in finding that the applicant did not meet the residency requirement under section 5 of the Act to be granted citizenship?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[7] It is well established that the standard of review regarding residency requirements in citizenship cases is that of reasonableness. As stated by Justice Richard Mosley in Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 2134 at paragraphs 9-10:
Applying a pragmatic and functional analysis to the review of the decisions of citizenship judges respecting the residency requirement of the Act, several judges of this court have recently concluded that a more appropriate standard would be reasonableness simpliciter: Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 1693, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2069; Rasaei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 1688, [2004] F.C.J. No. 2051; Gunnarson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 1592, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1913; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chen 2004 FC 848, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1040; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fu 2004 FC 60, [2004] F.C.J. No. 88; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chang 2003 FC 1472, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1871.
I agree that the question of whether a person has met the residency requirement under the Act is a question of mixed law and fact and that Citizenship Judges are owed some deference by virtue of their special degree of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, I accept that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter and that, as stated by Snider J. in Chen, supra at paragraph 5, "as long as there is a demonstrated understanding of the case law and appreciation of the facts and their application to the statutory test, deference should be shown."
ANALYSIS
[8] In his analysis of the applicant’s case, the citizenship judge chose to rely on the test set out in Re Koo, [1992] F.C.J. No. 1107, where Madam Justice Barbara J. Reed held as follows:
The conclusion I draw from the jurisprudence is that the test is whether it can be said that Canada is the place where the applicant "regularly, normally or customarily lives". Another formulation of the same test is whether Canada is the country in which he or she has centralised his or her mode of existence. Questions that can be asked which assist in such a determination are:
(1) was the individual physically present in Canada for a long period prior to recent absences which occurred immediately before the application for citizenship;
(2) where are the applicant's immediate family and dependents (and extended family) resident;
(3) does the pattern of physical presence in Canada indicate a returning home or merely visiting the country;
(4) what is the extent of the physical absences - if an applicant is only a few days short of the 1095 day total it is easier to find deemed residence than if those absences are extensive;
(5) is the physical absence caused by a clearly temporary situation such as employment as a missionary abroad, following a course of study abroad as a student, accepting temporary employment abroad, accompanying a spouse who has accepted temporary employment abroad;
(6) what is the quality of the connection with Canada: is it more substantial than that which exists with any other country.
[9] First, the applicant submits that the citizenship judge erred in his failure to consider all of the relevant circumstances of Mrs. Kakar’s life in Canada from 1970 until 1983. This failure resulted in an incomplete analysis of the facts, and thus a reviewable error. The applicant further submits that the citizenship judge erred in his application of the test for residency, by blending two separate tests, namely the substantial connection test set out in Re Koo, above, and the strict calculation of time.
[10] The respondent for his part submits that a fair reading of the citizenship judge’s decision and reasons show that he did consider the relevant circumstances of the applicant’s life. In fact, the applicant simply failed to demonstrate that she had centralized her mode of existence in Canada during the relevant time, as required by the Re Koo test. The respondent further holds that the citizenship judge considered all the facts and properly applied the relevant test. As such, the decision is not unreasonable and should not be disturbed on review.
[11] In this Court’s opinion, a review of the citizenship judge’s decision shows that he listed all the relevant criteria and sought to apply the facts of the applicant’s case to the Re Koo test. As noted by the citizenship judge, while the applicant may have resided in Canada on a permanent basis for twelve years starting in 1970, since 1983, she has made India her home. Her husband and children reside in India and the pattern of her physical presence in Canada shows that she is living in India, and visiting Canada.
[12] We must also be cognizant of the fact that time spent in Canada remains a key element to be considered, even when one applies the more generous test found in Re Koo. More to the point, the applicant did not simply fall short of the three-year requirement by a few days or even a few months, but by more than a year. Also, the time spent outside of the country has not been in the pursuit of an education or on a temporary work assignment abroad, with Canada remaining her anchor and the country to which the applicant is likely to return to in the end. On the contrary, from the evidence presented, it is quite clear that the applicant has in fact “centralized her mode of existence”, but that she has done so in India, not in Canada.
[13] The applicant also maintains that the citizenship judge erred by not making a recommendation to the Minister for an exercise of discretion under sub-section 5(4) of the Act. However, as correctly noted by the respondent, the onus was on the applicant to provide evidence of special or undue hardship that would justify an exercise of ministerial discretion, which she failed to do. Furthermore, the power given to a citizenship judge to recommend an exercise of discretion under section 15(1) is not considered a decision under section 14(2), and as such, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter in the present proceedings (Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1943).
[14] Finally, the applicant submits that the Citizenship and Immigration Commission failed in its statutory duty to give adequate and timely notice to the applicant of her denial of citizenship. While there is no question that the decision was issued well outside the sixty-day period set out in section 14(1) of the Act, the respondent is correct in stating that, absent any demonstrated prejudice to the applicant, this is not a reviewable error (Wan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 81).
[15] For all the above reasons, this application is denied.
JUDGMENT
The application is denied.
“Pierre Blais”
Judge
ANNEX
PERTINENT LEGISLATION
Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29
|
5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who (a) makes application for citizenship; (b) is eighteen years of age or over; (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his or her application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner: (i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and (ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence; (d) has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada; (e) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and (f) is not under a removal order and is not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20.
[…]
(3) The Minister may, in his discretion, waive on compassionate grounds, (a) in the case of any person, the requirements of paragraph (1)(d) or (e); (b) in the case of a minor, the requirement respecting age set out in paragraph (1)(b), the requirement respecting length of residence in Canada set out in paragraph (1)(c) or the requirement to take the oath of citizenship; and (c) in the case of any person who is prevented from understanding the significance of taking the oath of citizenship by reason of a mental disability, the requirement to take the oath.
(4) In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Governor in Council may, in his discretion, direct the Minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the Minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction.
14. (1) An application for (a) a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1), (b) a retention of citizenship under section 8, (c) a renunciation of citizenship under subsection 9(1), or (d) a resumption of citizenship under subsection 11(1) shall be considered by a citizenship judge who shall, within sixty days of the day the application was referred to the judge, determine whether or not the person who made the application meets the requirements of this Act and the regulations with respect to the application.
[…]
(2) Forthwith after making a determination under subsection (1) in respect of an application referred to therein but subject to section 15, the citizenship judge shall approve or not approve the application in accordance with his determination, notify the Minister accordingly and provide the Minister with the reasons therefore.
(3) Where a citizenship judge does not approve an application under subsection (2), the judge shall forthwith notify the applicant of his decision, of the reasons therefore and of the right to appeal.
(4) A notice referred to in subsection (3) is sufficient if it is sent by registered mail to the applicant at his latest known address.
(5) The Minister or the applicant may appeal to the Court from the decision of the citizenship judge under subsection (2) by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court within sixty days after the day on which (a) the citizenship judge approved the application under subsection (2); or (b) notice was mailed or otherwise given under subsection (3) with respect to the application.
(6) A decision of the Court pursuant to an appeal made under subsection (5) is, subject to section 20, final and, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lies therefore.
15. (1) Where a citizenship judge is unable to approve an application under subsection 14(2), the judge shall, before deciding not to approve it, consider whether or not to recommend an exercise of discretion under subsection 5(3) or (4) or subsection 9(2) as the circumstances may require.
(2) Where a citizenship judge makes a recommendation for an exercise of discretion under subsection (1), the judge shall (a) notify the applicant; (b) transmit the recommendation to the Minister with the reasons therefore; and (c) in accordance with the decision that has been made in respect of his recommendation, forthwith on the communication of the decision to the judge approve or not approve the application.
|
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois : a) en fait la demande; b) est âgée d’au moins dix-huit ans; c) est un résident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés et a, dans les quatre ans qui ont précédé la date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins trois ans en tout, la durée de sa résidence étant calculée de la manière suivante : (i) un demi-jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada avant son admission à titre de résident permanent, (ii) un jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada après son admission à titre de résident permanent; d) a une connaissance suffisante de l’une des langues officielles du Canada; e) a une connaissance suffisante du Canada et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté; f) n’est pas sous le coup d’une mesure de renvoi et n’est pas visée par une déclaration du gouverneur en conseil faite en application de l’article 20.
[…]
(3) Pour des raisons d’ordre humanitaire, le ministre a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d’exempter : a) dans tous les cas, des conditions prévues aux alinéas (1)d) ou e); b) dans le cas d’un mineur, des conditions relatives soit à l’âge ou à la durée de résidence au Canada respectivement énoncées aux alinéas (1)b) et c), soit à la prestation du serment de citoyenneté; c) dans le cas d’une personne incapable de saisir la portée du serment de citoyenneté en raison d’une déficience mentale, de l’exigence de prêter ce serment.
(4) Afin de remédier à une situation particulière et inhabituelle de détresse ou de récompenser des services exceptionnels rendus au Canada, le gouverneur en conseil a le pouvoir discrétionnaire, malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, d’ordonner au ministre d’attribuer la citoyenneté à toute personne qu’il désigne; le ministre procède alors sans délai à l’attribution.
14. (1) Dans les soixante jours de sa saisine, le juge de la citoyenneté statue sur la conformité — avec les dispositions applicables en l’espèce de la présente loi et de ses règlements — des demandes déposées en vue de : a) l’attribution de la citoyenneté, au titre du paragraphe 5(1); b) la conservation de la citoyenneté, au titre de l’article 8; c) la répudiation de la citoyenneté, au titre du paragraphe 9(1); d) la réintégration dans la citoyenneté, au titre du paragraphe 11(1).
[…]
(2) Aussitôt après avoir statué sur la demande visée au paragraphe (1), le juge de la citoyenneté, sous réserve de l’article 15, approuve ou rejette la demande selon qu’il conclut ou non à la conformité de celle-ci et transmet sa décision motivée au ministre.
(3) En cas de rejet de la demande, le juge de la citoyenneté en informe sans délai le demandeur en lui faisant connaître les motifs de sa décision et l’existence d’un droit d’appel.
(4) L’obligation d’informer prévue au paragraphe (3) peut être remplie par avis expédié par courrier recommandé au demandeur à sa dernière adresse connue.
(5) Le ministre et le demandeur peuvent interjeter appel de la décision du juge de la citoyenneté en déposant un avis d’appel au greffe de la Cour dans les soixante jours suivant la date, selon le cas : a) de l’approbation de la demande; b) de la communication, par courrier ou tout autre moyen, de la décision de rejet.
(6) La décision de la Cour rendue sur l’appel prévu au paragraphe (5) est, sous réserve de l’article 20, définitive et, par dérogation à toute autre loi fédérale, non susceptible d’appel.
15. (1) Avant de rendre une décision de rejet, le juge de la citoyenneté examine s’il y a lieu de recommander l’exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire prévu aux paragraphes 5(3) ou (4) ou 9(2), selon le cas.
(2) S’il recommande l’exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire, le juge de la citoyenneté : a) en informe le demandeur; b) transmet sa recommandation motivée au ministre; c) approuve ou rejette la demande dès réception de la réponse du ministre, en se conformant à la décision prise par celui-ci à l’égard de sa recommandation.
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL and SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-889-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Veenita Kakar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: January 17, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Mr. Justice Blais
DATE OF REASONS: January 22, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Christine E.P. Bishop For the applicant
Mr. Brad Hardstaff For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP For the applicant
Edmonton, Alberta
John H. Sims, Q.C. For the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario