Date: 19971125
Docket: T-962-97
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
IN RE THE Citizenship Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29,
AND IN RE an appeal from the decision
of a Citizenship Judge,
AND IN RE
Annick Christiane Moulot,
Appellant.
J U D G M E N T
The appeal from the Citizenship Judge"s decision of February 26, 1997 not approving the appellant"s application for citizenship is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 25, 1997
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Date: 19971125
Docket: T-962-97
IN RE THE Citizenship Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29,
AND IN RE an appeal from the decision
of a Citizenship Judge,
AND IN RE
Annick Christiane Moulot,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PINARD J.:
[1] The Court has before it an appeal by way of a trial de novo from a Citizenship Judge"s decision on February 26, 1997 not approving the appellant"s application for citizenship because she did not meet the residence requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(c ) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 (the Act), which provides as follows:
| 5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who |
|
| (c) has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence, has not ceased since such admission to be a permanent resident pursuant to section 24 of the Immigration Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner: |
|
| (i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and |
|
| (ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence; |
|
(Emphasis added.)
[2] The appellant was born in the Ivory Coast on November 12, 1976. She came to Canada with her father, two of her six brothers and one of her two sisters on August 9, 1990 to obtain permanent resident status here. She returned to France almost immediately, in September 1990, to continue living there with her mother so she could carry on with her studies near Paris. In 1992, she went to live with one of her brothers in Toulouse, France, again for the purpose of completing her college studies. Finally, in the summer of 1995, she came to live in Canada, where she resides with her father, in order to attend university. During her studies in France, the appellant came to Canada to visit her father during the Christmas and summer holidays and stayed in a room set up for her in her father"s apartment.
[3] During the relevant four-year period from July 4, 1992 to July 4, 1996, the date of her application for citizenship, the appellant spent 904 days in France and the Ivory Coast. She is therefore a long way from completing the 1,095 days needed to meet the residence requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[4] According to a certain line of cases, a person applying for Canadian citizenship does not have to be physically present in Canada for the entire 1,095 days if special or exceptional circumstances exist. I believe, however, that overly long absences (even if temporary) from Canada during this minimum period of time, as in the case at bar, are contrary to the objective behind the residence requirements set out in the Act. Moreover, the Act already authorizes a person who has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence not to reside in Canada during one of the four years immediately preceding the date of the person"s application for citizenship (see Re Pourghasemi (1993), 62 F.T.R. 122, Re John Ting Min Hui (1994), 75 F.T.R. 81, and Re Kam Chuen Lau (February 15, 1996), T-1508-95 (F.C.T.D.)).
[5] It is true that in Thomas Alan Keahey (June 4, 1997), T-265-96, I allowed a student"s appeal despite his long absence from Canada during the four years immediately preceding the date of his application for citizenship. However, in that case I felt that there were special and exceptional circumstances that justified allowing the student"s appeal, since he had regularly, normally or customarily lived in Canada with the rest of his family for some 20 years before his long absences abroad to complete his studies. In another such case, Re Michael Brian Wasser (October 10, 1996), T-2330-95, Noël J. also allowed a student"s appeal because he had "lived in Canada continuously between the ages of 7 and 27" before leaving to begin his advanced studies in the United States.
[6] In the case at bar, the appellant clearly continued to reside in France with her mother and then with one of her brothers, for the noble purpose of continuing her secondary and college studies, before she actually came to reside in Canada with her father in the summer of 1995. Her case is very different from those of Keahey and Wasser, supra.
[7] I therefore conclude, despite my sympathy for the appellant"s situation, that she does not meet the residence requirements set out in the Act. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 25, 1997
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Citizenship Act and Annick Christiane Moulot |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: November 12, 1997 |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard |
APPEARANCES:
Maurice Mousseau
Martin Courville for the Appellant
Jean Caumartin amicus curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Maurice Mousseau for the Appellant
Montréal, Quebec
Jean Caumartin
Montréal, Quebec amicus curiae
Email this Content