Date: 20000508
Docket: T-951-99
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND:
ROSAMARIA BASSO PERRIER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROULEAU J.:
[1] This is an appeal lodged by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, from a decision rendered by the citizenship judge, Barbara Seal. The citizenship judge approved the respondent's application for citizenship.
[2] The respondent, Rosamaria Basso Perrier, was born on August 30, 1950 in Venezuela. She arrived in Canada on March 9, 1985 and was admitted as a permanent resident the same day. On May 28, 1984 she married Mr. Michel Perrier, a Canadian citizen. Mr. Perrier is a helicopter mechanic, and must regularly work outside Canada. Mr. Perrier's children and grandchildren live in Canada.
[3] In her statement dated August 26, 1998, the respondent declared that she had been present in Canada for only 659 days during the four years preceding her application for citizenship.
[4] The citizenship judge declared that the respondent's absences were temporary, and that their purpose was to enable her to accompany her husband in his work outside Canada. The judge noted that the respondent has had a house in Canada since 1989. She also mentioned that the respondent's husband pays taxes in Canada and has a bank account, an insurance policy, an automobile and an RRSP in Canada. The respondent's passport was renewed in 1991, and it indicates Montreal as her place of residence. For these reasons, the citizenship judge declared that Canada is the respondent's place of residence. The applicant, who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is appealing this decision.
[5] The applicant submits that the respondent has not satisfied the criterion for the period of residence in Canada. He recalls that the Citizenship Act provides that a person must have resided in Canada for a minimum of three years (or 1095 days) during the period of four years preceding their application for citizenship.
[6] The applicant maintains that the concept of residence is assessed on the basis of physical presence in Canada, and therefore argues that the citizenship judge erred in her interpretation of the Citizenship Act.
[7] The applicant also affirms that certain absences from Canada may be counted as part of the required three-year period, but only in special circumstances. This, the applicant claims, is not the case in the present matter.
[8] The applicant's major argument is that the respondent left Canada for over two years barely a month after arriving in this country. He argues that for the respondent's absences to be counted in the three-year period, it would first have been necessary for her to establish herself personally in Canada before leaving for more than two years.
[9] Finally, the applicant argues that the respondent came to Canada rather as a visitor than to reside here, since she has been outside the country more often than in it.
[10] The Citizenship Act requires an applicant to reside in Canada for a minimum of three years in the four years preceding the application for residence. Unfortunately, section 5 of the Act does not define the concept of "residence". However, it is established that physical presence during the period preceding an application for residence is not an imperative or determining factor in itself. In fact, the concept of residence in Canada is analyzed on the basis of the facts in each particular case. In general, it is appropriate to consider the circumstances of an applicant's establishment in Canada and the applicant's intention to make Canada his or her permanent home.
[11] In Re Hung,1 Dubé J. wrote as follows:
| Where an applicant for citizenship has clearly and definitively established a home in Canada with the transparent intention of maintaining permanent roots in this country, he ought not to be deprived of citizenship merely because he has to earn his livelihood and that of his family by doing business offshore. |
[12] In Re Farah,2 Denault J. made the following statement about the concept of residence:
| ... an applicant must establish a "pied-à-terre" in Canada and provide clear evidence of his intention to reside here. Furthermore, the definition of the term "residence", as extended by this Court, should not be construed as enabling an applicant to adopt Canada merely as a flag of convenience. |
[13] In spite of the fact that the respondent has only been present in Canada for 659 days, I am not satisfied that this factor alone is sufficient to find that she does not meet the criteria of section 5 of the Act.
[14] It is true that when she arrived in Canada in 1985, the respondent spent very little time in the country. She was an Italian citizen at the time, and returned to that country for a period of two years. However, she came back to Canada and settled here with her husband. Evidence has been led that she resided in Canada from July 1992 to June 1995.
[15] The respondent's periods of absence in the four years preceding her application for citizenship are due to the fact that she was accompanying her husband, who had to travel abroad because of his employment. For this reason, the couple travelled to Bolivia, Argentina and Venezuela. The evidence has also shown that the respondent followed her husband to Fort Erie, in Ontario, where Mr. Perrier had obtained a contract of employment with the Union Hélicoptère corporation.
[16] Ms. Basso Perrier and her husband have a house in Canada, and pay their municipal and school taxes. Mr. Perrier has a considerable RRSP, of which the respondent is the beneficiary. They also have a joint bank account. In addition, the respondent's physician has certified that she has been his patient since 1990.
[17] In light of the facts before me, I am convinced that the respondent had established a "pied-à-terre" in Canada. The decision of the citizenship judge may not be regarded as unreasonable.
[18] Consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
"P. ROULEAU"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 8, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Bruntet, LL.B.
Date: 20000508
Docket: T-951-99
OTTAWA, Ontario, this 8th day of May 2000
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Rouleau
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND:
ROSAMARIA BASSO PERRIER
Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"P. ROULEAU"
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Martine Bruntet, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND OF SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: T-951-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
v.
ROSAMARIA BASSO PERRIER
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 17, 2000
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ROULEAU
DATE: May 8, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Josée Paquin
for Applicant
No appearance
for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
for Applicant
__________________
1 [1996] F.C.J. No. 1401.
2[1995] F.C.J. No. 1422.
Email this Content