Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Behbahani

Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions
Date 2007-07-30
Neutral citation 2007 FC 795
File numbers T-795-06

Decision Content

 

Date: 20070730

Docket: T-795-06

Citation: 2007 FC 795

Ottawa, Ontario, July 30, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson

 

 

BETWEEN:

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Applicant

and

 

GHOLAMREZA BEHBAHANI

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

 

[1]               On March 10, 2006, a Citizenship Judge (the Judge) approved the Respondent’s application for citizenship (the Decision). The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister) has appealed the Decision under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-29 (the Act) on the basis that the Judge failed to provide the Minister with reasons for the Decision.

 

[2]               The requirement for such reasons is found in subsection 14(2) of the Act.  It states:

14. (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 therefor.

                                    [my emphasis]

14. (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.

 

                                    [je souligne]

 

[3]               The Decision is attached as Schedule “A” to these reasons. It does not explain why the Respondent was given citizenship even though he did not meet the statutory residency requirement (he was twenty-two days short) and even though, after repeated requests, he did not provide Citizenship and Immigration with his expired passports.

 

[4]               In the circumstances of this case, reasons should have, inter alia, described any documents the Respondent brought to the hearing and their impact on the Decision and should have indicated the residency test the Judge used and explained why he decided that the residency requirements in section 5 of the Act had been met.

 

[5]               In my view, because the box provided for reasons on Schedule “A” is blank and because there are no other statements or endorsements which explain the Judge’s thought process, the Judge failed to discharge his duty under subsection 14(2). While Schedule “A” meets the notice requirement, it does not satisfy the requirement to provide reasons.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

            UPON reviewing the material filed and hearing the submissions of counsel for both parties in Vancouver, BC on April 10, 2007;

 

            AND UPON being advised that the Judge is still a Citizenship Judge.

 

            THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that, for the reasons above, the appeal is allowed and the file is referred back to the Judge who made the Decision. He is hereby ordered to provide the Minister with written reasons for the Decision, in accordance with these reasons within ninety (90) days of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

“Sandra J. Simpson”

JUDGE

 

 

 


FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          T-795-06

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MCI v. Gholamreza Behbahani

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Vancouver, BC

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      April 10, 2007

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:       SIMPSON J.

 

DATED:                                             July 30, 2007

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Ms. Liliane Bantourakis

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Lorne Waldman

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Lorne Waldman

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.