Date: 19990527
Docket: T-761-98
Ottawa, Ontario, May 27, 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
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
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Appellant
- and -
HANANE GHOUILI
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The Minister"s appeal is dismissed.
PIERRE DENAULT
Judge
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19990527
Docket: T-761-98
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
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Appellant
- and -
HANANE GHOUILI
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DENAULT J.
[1] In the case at bar, a citizenship judge allowed the respondent"s application for citizenship because she recognized that the respondent had maintained her residence and domicile in Canada during her temporary absences without intending to reside in another country. Basing her reasoning on Papadogiorgakis , [1978] 2 F.C. 208, the citizenship judge found that the respondent had resided in Canada for the residence period set by paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29, that is, three years within the four years immediately preceding her application.
[2] The Minister is appealing this decision on the ground that within the four years immediately preceding the date of the application"August 1, 1997"the respondent had accumulated 1,009 days of absence from Canada and therefore had resided in Canada for a period of only 452 days (1461 & 1009 ' 452), whereas the Act requires her to have resided at least 1,095 days.
[3] An analysis of the respondent"s application for Canadian citizenship on August 1, 1997, actually shows that between September 24, 1993, and July 4, 1997, the respondent resided for long periods in Gabon, where, according to her statement, she was accompanying her husband, who was working there as a co-operant.
[4] At the hearing of this appeal, heard as a trial de novo, the respondent and her husband explained that he, a Canadian citizen since July 1995, had done a number of contracts since 1992 for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) as a co-operant in a technical and scientific training project between Canada and Gabon. The evidence also shows that even while the respondent was living with her husband in Gabon, they had the benefit of living in a Canadian environment in that over 40 Canadian co-operants were working and socializing there. That is probably what led the citizenship judge to allow the respondent"s application.
| |
[5] But that is not all. Subsection 5(1.1) of the Citizenship Act states: |
|
| |
Any day during which an applicant for citizenship resided with the applicant"s spouse who at the time was a Canadian citizen and was employed outside of Canada in or with the Canadian armed forces or the public service of Canada or of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, shall be treated as equivalent to one day of residence in Canada for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c ) and subsection 11(1). |
|
There is no doubt that in the case at bar, the respondent"s husband, a Canadian citizen, was employed outside of Canada in or with the public service of Canada. In fact, as a CIDA employee, the respondent"s husband was a public officer as defined in the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11 (s. 2), in that pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(a), this agency appears in Schedule I.1 to that Act.
[6] The record does not show whether, in calculating the respondent"s days of residence in Canada, the citizenship judge had regard to the long stays in Gabon when the respondent was accompanying her husband, a Canadian citizen and CIDA co-operant. The evidence at the hearing, however, shows that the 948 days during which the spouses resided in Gabon between September 24, 1993, and July 4, 1997, were to be considered as days of residence in Canada.
[7] The Court is accordingly of the view that the respondent easily met the residence requirement for entitlement to Canadian citizenship.
[8] For these reasons, the Minister"s appeal is dismissed.
PIERRE DENAULT
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 27, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-761-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of Canada
v. Hanane Ghouili
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 20, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Denault
DATED: May 27, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Caroline Doyon for the appellant
Hanane Ghouili for the respondent
(representing herself)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the appellant
Email this Content