Date: 19880818
Docket: T-2365-97
Ottawa, Ontario, August 18, 1998
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
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
Nuria Nahil
Appellant
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the special circumstances of this case, as described in the reasons filed in support of this judgment, it is respectfully recommended that the Minister exercise the discretion conferred on him by subsection 5(3) of the Citizenship Act to waive the requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(e) of that Act in the case of the appellant.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19880818
Docket: T-2365-97
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
Nuria Nahil
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PINARD J.:
[1] The appellant is appealing the decision of a Citizenship judge rejecting her application for citizenship on the ground that she did not meet the requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act, which reads as follows:
5.(1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who
...
| (e) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and |
...
5.(1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois:
...
| e) a une connaissance suffisante du Canada et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté; |
...
[2] This is an appeal de novo. After realizing that the appellant was absolutely incapable of answering questions regarding her knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, I read the medical report describing the serious head injuries she had suffered in a car accident on September 29, 1994. Although that report, which was signed by the neurologist, Louis E. Roy M.D., and the psychiatrist, Jean-Pierre Berthiaume M.D., was written after the appellant was examined on September 13, 1996, it does not seem to have been brought to the attention of the Citizenship judge, as it was not filed in the registry of this Court until about May 21, 1998. This is undoubtedly explained by the fact that the report was written for the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, to which it was submitted on October 10, 1996.
[3] The report had been requested in order to establish:
[TRANSLATION]
| 1. Permanent impairment: did the injuries suffered in the accident on September 29, 1994, leave objective sequelae in the following regions: central nervous system, peripheral nervous system, mental system? |
|
| 2. After examining this woman, who was injured in a car accident, can you give us your opinion as to whether she need someone to be with her constantly? Please provide reasons for your reply and, if possible, indicate for how long. |
|
[4] After describing the various relevant documents and clinical assessment of the appellant, the specialists concluded:
| - In reply to question no. 1 regarding permanent impairment, referring specifically to the central nervous system, the peripheral nervous system and the mental system, the main factor to be taken into consideration is the fact that the patent presents a major organic brain syndrome with alteration of the higher cognitive and emotional functions, preventing her from performing the activities of daily life common to everyone, and requiring constant supervision in performing those activities, which may account for an ADP of 100%. |
|
| - In reply to question no. 2 regarding the need for someone to be with the patient constantly, it seems plain to us that the patient requires constant supervision and it may be foreseen that this will mean permanent constant supervision, given that it is already two years since the accident occurred and the patient's condition has remained essentially stable in the last year. There are a number of factors that warrant constant supervision for the patient, and we would cite memory problems, orientation problems, alterations in terms of judgment and abstract thinking, the need for supervision in performing activities of daily life, the need for supervision in performing tasks such as preparing meals and washing dishes, the inability to incorporate new information, the inability to incorporate instructions, apathy, carelessness, the fact that the patient is not aware of danger, that she is easily disoriented, and so on, as we were able to observe on the premises in our offices. These numerous cognitive deficits and the numerous difficulties in daily functioning that were observed require constant, permanent supervision. |
|
[5] Having regard to the special circumstances, it is easy to understand that the appellant would be incapable of answering and I do not believe that denying her Canadian citizenship would be in the public interest or in anyone's interest. Accordingly, although this appeal cannot be allowed, I have no hesitation in respectfully recommending that the Minister exercise the discretion conferred on him by paragraph 5(3) of the Citizenship Act to waive the requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(e) of that Act in the case of the appellant.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 18, 1998
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: T-2365
STYLE OF CAUSE: Citizenship Act - and - Noria Nahil
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 4, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF PINARD J.
DATED: August 18, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Noria Nahil
for herself
Jean Caumartin
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean Caumartin
Advocate
| Montréal, Quebec Amicus Curiae |
Email this Content