Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chved, docket T-1927-99

Date: 20001012

Docket: T-1927-99

BETWEEN:

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Applicant

-and-

TATIANA CHVED

Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DAWSON J.

[1]      At issue in this appeal is whether the citizenship judge erred in approving the application of the respondent, Ms. Chved, for citizenship, and more particularly whether she erred in determining that Ms. Chved met the residence requirement contained in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 as amended ("Act").

[2]      I advised the parties at the conclusion of the oral hearing that the Minister's appeal would be allowed. These are my reasons for allowing the appeal.

[3]      Ms. Chved, a citizen of Ukraine, first came to Canada as a visitor on January 28, 1995 at the age of 20 to visit her mother, stepfather and other relatives. She then left Canada on March 26, 1995 to continue her studies in Ukraine.

[4]      Ms. Chved remained in the Ukraine, living in a home which she owned, until October 11, 1995 when she returned to Canada as a landed immigrant. On that occasion Ms. Chved stayed with family members for approximately two weeks, returning to Ukraine on October 26, 1995. Once back in Ukraine she continued to live in her own home and continued her studies. On August 2, 1996 she married in Ukraine.

[5]      On March 19, 1997, she returned to Canada with her husband. She again stayed briefly with family members until April 1, 1997 when she and her husband moved to an apartment.

[6]      On September 16, 1998, Ms. Chved applied for Canadian citizenship.

[7]      In support of her application Ms. Chved included an Ontario Health Card, Social Insurance Card, Canadian income tax returns for the 1997 and 1998 tax years, a letter from a bank indicating that she opened a bank account in Ontario in January of 1999, a notice of rent increase in Ontario effective January 1, 1999, cancelled rent cheques for 1997 and 1998, and a letter from a credit union stating she had been a member since March of 1997.

[8]      In the four years preceding her application Ms. Chved was present in Canada for the equivalent of 577 days, and so was 518 days short of meeting the 1,095 day residence requirement.

[9]      By decision dated September 8, 1999 the citizenship judge approved Ms. Chved's application for citizenship for the following reasons:

[10]      From the evidence, I am satisfied that it could not properly have been concluded that Ms. Chved established either a pied à terre or centralized her mode of living during the two week period in which she stayed with her parents as a landed immigrant or during her prior brief visit with family members. The reference to a pied à terre indicates that the citizenship judge must have had regard to one of these two initial periods because once Ms. Chved moved permanently to Canada in 1997 and remained here, there would be no need to refer to a pied à terre.

[11]      In finding that the conclusion of the citizenship judge was incorrect, I note particularly that the evidence provided by Ms. Chved in support of her application for citizenship consisted of what has been referred to as passive indicia of residence. No evidence was provided of any active effort on Ms. Chved's part to integrate into Canadian society.

[12]      Ms. Chved's citizenship application was premature. As I explained to her at the hearing, this decision is intended to cast no doubt on her ability in due course to become a respected citizen and she is encouraged to make a fresh application in the future.

[13]      The appeal is allowed and the decision of the citizenship judge dated September 8, 1999 is quashed.

                                 "Eleanor R. Dawson"

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

October 12, 2000