Docket: T-558-14
Citation:
2014 FC 916
Vancouver, British Columbia, September 25, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SIMRIN SINGH GILL
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Simren Singh Gill appeals the decision of a
Citizenship Judge refusing his application for Canadian citizenship. The Judge
found that Mr. Gill did not meet the language requirements of the Citizenship
Act, and that he had not provided evidence of special circumstances that
would justify a recommendation that the language requirements of the Act be
waived.
[2]
Mr. Gill asserts that the Citizenship
Judge’s finding that he did not have an adequate knowledge of English was
unreasonable, and that the reasons provided by the Judge were inadequate. He
further asserts that he was denied procedural fairness in this matter, as he
was not put on notice that he should bring documentation to his citizenship
hearing that could establish his linguistic ability. He was also never advised
to provide evidence of special circumstances that could justify the waiver of
the language requirement.
[3]
I have concluded that although the reasons
provided by the Citizenship Judge were far from perfect, when they are viewed
in the context of the record as a whole, the basis for the decision is evident.
I am further satisfied that the Citizenship Judge’s finding that Mr. Gill
did not possess an adequate knowledge of the English language was one that was
reasonably open to him. Mr. Gill has also failed to persuade me that
he was treated unfairly by the Citizenship Judge. Consequently, the appeal will
be dismissed.
I.
Background
[4]
Mr. Gill is a 44-year-old truck driver
residing in Surrey, British Columbia. He was sponsored by his Canadian wife,
and arrived in Canada from India on June 24, 2006, shortly before the birth of
his daughter. Mr. Gill is the family’s sole breadwinner, and had to begin
working immediately upon his arrival in Canada. He initially worked installing
kitchen cabinets. However, in 2011, he became a truck driver after taking the
courses necessary to obtain a Class 1 driver’s license.
[5]
By letter dated January 2, 2014, Mr. Gill
was summoned to a hearing before a Citizenship Judge. He was advised that the
purpose of the hearing was to determine whether he met the requirements for
citizenship, including whether he had an adequate knowledge of either English
or French, and whether he had an adequate knowledge of Canada. Mr. Gill was instructed to bring various documents relating to his identity and his
immigration status to the hearing.
[6]
Mr. Gill attended before Citizenship Judge
Dane Minor on January 22, 2014. A Punjabi interpreter was also present at the
hearing. With the assistance of the interpreter, Mr. Gill answered 18 of
the 20 questions asked of him regarding his knowledge of Canada, and the
Citizenship Judge was satisfied that Mr. Gill met the knowledge
requirements of the Act.
[7]
Insofar as Mr. Gill’s linguistic abilities
were concerned, the Citizenship Judge gave Mr. Gill a score of 3 out of 6.
The Judge’s interview notes state “Applicant understood
many of my questions and does speak English. However he does not use full
sentences of past tense or connectors. He passed knowledge test but relied on
the interpreter heavily for complex questions. When informed he failed he
responded ‘much experience English, not good but talk English’.”
[8]
The Citizenship Judge subsequently issued a
decision letter that stated that Mr. Gill “could not
comprehend basic spoken statements and questions and (or) [he] could not convey
basic information or answers to questions”. The letter further stated
that Mr. Gill was unable to:
−
show that [he] knew enough words for basic
everyday communication AND/OR
−
tell a simple story about everyday activities
AND/OR
−
speak about something [he] did in the past
AND/OR
−
give simple everyday instructions and
directions.
[9]
The letter further states that the Citizenship
Judge had considered whether to exercise his discretion to recommend waiving
the language requirement, either on compassionate grounds or to reward services
of an exceptional value to Canada. He decided not to exercise his discretion,
however, as Mr. Gill had not presented evidence justifying such a
recommendation.
II.
Was the Citizenship Judge’s Decision Reasonable?
[10]
Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-29, requires individuals to have adequate knowledge of at least one
of Canada’s official languages. Section 14 of the Citizenship Regulations,
S.O.R./93-246, explains that an “adequate” knowledge
of an official language means that an applicant can comprehend basic spoken
statements and questions and can convey orally or in writing basic information
or answers to questions.
[11]
In accordance with section 14 of the Regulations,
the determination of the adequacy of an applicant’s language skills is to be
made by a Citizenship Judge, “based on questions prepared
by the Minister”.
[12]
Citizenship Judges are in the best position to
assess the adequacy of an applicant’s language abilities. The Citizenship
Judge’s notes and Mr. Gill’s affidavit both confirm that Mr. Gill was
asked a series of questions designed to test his language ability, and that he
was indeed able to answer a number of them.
[13]
However, Mr. Gill admits in his affidavit
that he was unable to adequately explain what he had done the previous day (a
question that would involve the use of the past tense), and that he was also
unable to describe the contents of the room in which the hearing took place. In
light of this, I am satisfied that the Citizenship Judge’s determination that Mr. Gill
did not have an adequate knowledge of the English language was one that was
reasonably open to him.
[14]
Mr. Gill also asserts that the Citizenship
Judge erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for his decision. I agree
with Mr. Gill that the decision under review is far from perfect. I am
especially troubled by the fact that the Citizenship Judge utilized what
appears to be a template decision and did not bother to tailor the decision to
the specifics of Mr. Gill’s case, as is evidenced by the
repeated use of “and/or”.
[15]
That said, perfection is not the standard by
which reasons are judged, and an inadequacy in the reasons is not a stand-alone
basis for judicial review. In determining whether a decision is reasonable, a
reviewing Court must pay attention to the reasons offered by the decision-maker
and to the record as a whole: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v.
Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, at paras. 14-15,
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 708.
[16]
When regard is had to the Citizenship Judge’s
interview notes, the basis for his determination that Mr. Gill lacked an
adequate knowledge of the English language is readily apparent. The reasons thus
meet the standard established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Newfoundland
Nurses.
III.
Was Mr. Gill Treated Unfairly?
[17]
Mr. Gill also argues that he was denied
procedural fairness in this matter, as he was not advised to bring
documentation to his citizenship hearing that could establish either his
linguistic abilities, or grounds on which the Citizenship Judge could recommend
waiving the language requirement. I do not agree that there was any unfairness
in the process followed in this case.
[18]
Mr. Gill says that it was apparent from his
citizenship application that he had obtained his Class 1 driver’s license in British Columbia. According to Mr. Gill, the Citizenship Judge should have taken
notice of the fact that he would have had to take courses and passed tests in
English in order to obtain such a license. This, he submits, would have
provided compelling evidence of his English language abilities.
[19]
The difficulty with this submission is that the
version of section 14 of the Citizenship Regulations in effect at the
time of Mr. Gill’s application for citizenship makes it clear that a
Citizenship Judge must assess the adequacy of an applicant’s language skills “based on questions prepared by the Minister”. As a
consequence, it would have been an error for the Judge to consider information regarding
Class 1 licensing requirements as evidence of Mr. Gill’s facility with the
English language.
[20]
Mr. Gill also contends that had he been
aware of the possibility of a waiver being granted, he could have provided
evidence to the Citizenship Judge with respect to his personal circumstances,
specifically his need to provide for his family and the impact that this had on
his ability to learn English.
[21]
The flaw in this argument is that the
possibility of a waiver of the language requirements of the Act is spelled out
in subsections 5(3) and 5(4) of the Citizenship Act. Mr. Gill is
deemed to have knowledge of the law, and no specific notice of these
provisions was required. Mr. Gill knew that his English language skills would
be assessed at his citizenship hearing. If he had concerns in this regard, it
was incumbent on him to provide evidence of special circumstances that could
justify a waiver of the language requirements. The Citizenship Judge cannot be
faulted for failing to consider information that was not put before him: Huynh
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1431 at para.
5, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1838.
[22]
The Citizenship Judge clearly turned his mind to
the issue of a waiver, and determined that a positive exercise of discretion
was not warranted in Mr. Gill’s case as he had not presented evidence of
special circumstances that would justify such a recommendation. No error on the
part of the Citizenship Judge has been established in this regard.
IV.
Conclusion
[23]
For these reasons, Mr. Gill has not
persuaded me that there are grounds to interfere with the Citizenship Judge’s decision.
It remains open to Mr. Gill to improve his English language skills and
reapply for Canadian citizenship, or to seek a waiver of the language
requirements on compassionate grounds, based upon a proper evidentiary record.
Email this Content