Docket: T-721-17
Citation:
2017 FC 1110
Ottawa, Ontario, December 6, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
OMID MEHDI
MOHIT
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the Bench in
Toronto, Ontario on November 21, 2017)
I.
Overview
[1]
The Applicant, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration [Minister], seeks judicial review of the decision rendered by a
Citizenship Judge [Judge] dated March 23rd, 2017, in which the Judge
approved Omid Mehdi Mohit’s [Mr. Mohit] application for Canadian citizenship pursuant
to paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act [Decision].
[2]
In disposing of Mr. Mohit’s application for
citizenship, the Judge chose to apply the test set out by Associate Chief
Justice Thurlow, as he then was, in Re Papadogiorgakis, [1978]
2 F.C. 208, 88 D.L.R. (3d) 243. This test required the Judge to consider
whether Mr. Mohit had established residency in Canada, and had maintained that
residency.
[3]
The Minister acknowledges that Mr. Mohit
established residency in Canada when he first arrived as a permanent resident
in July 2010. However, the Minister contends that Mr. Mohit does not meet the
second criteria; namely, he has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that
he has maintained his residency. Accordingly, the Minister contends the Judge
made an unreasonable decision when he concluded otherwise.
[4]
In support of his argument, the Minister cites
from paragraph 23 of the Judge’s Reasons and Decision, which read as follows:
Were the
Applicant’s absences from Canada “temporary” (as Thurlow A.C.J. stipulates)?
Each was. The current state of affairs – the Applicant’s ongoing employment
with WHO Cairo following his MPH degree – has endured, despite the Applicant’s
best efforts (he claims) he find (sic) public health employment in Canada. Nevertheless,
given the credible testimony and documentation of his attachment to Canada,
there is little doubt that he returns here at every opportunity.
[5]
The Minister contends that Mr. Mohit’s
employment with the World Health Organization in Cairo, Egypt, amongst other
factors, demonstrates a lack of intention to maintain residence in Canada. As a
result, the Decision is unreasonable.
[6]
Alternatively, the Minister contends that only
paragraph 23 addresses the criteria of maintained residency, while paragraphs
17 to 22 of the Judge’s Reasons and Decision address the establishment of residency.
The Minister asserts that such brief observations, particularly the two-word
sentence “Each was.”, are demonstrative of inadequate
reasons that leave the court unable to assess the reasonability of the Judge’s
Decision.
II.
Standard of Review
[7]
The parties agree that the standard of review is
reasonableness, as set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para. 47 [Dunsmuir]. They also agree that the purported
inadequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for granting judicial review; acknowledging
that the reasons must be read
together with the evidence and the outcome in order to determine whether the
result falls within a range of possible acceptable outcomes (Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 at para. 14 [Newfoundland and Labrador
Nurses]).
III.
Issues
[8]
The issue is whether the Judge’s Decision to
approve Mr. Mohit’s citizenship application was justified, transparent and
intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are
defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir at para. 47).
IV.
Analysis
[9]
I agree that the Judge’s analysis lacks
thoroughness. Nevertheless, I conclude that the Reasons and Decision meet the standard
of reasonableness. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered: the summary
of the interview between the Judge and Mr. Mohit; the evidence and the factual
summary provided by the Judge.
[10]
I will briefly recite some of the facts before
the Judge: Mr. Mohit’s family, including his spouse and son, resides in
Richmond Hill, Ontario, where they have lived since their arrival in Canada.
Mr. Mohit has undertaken extensive renovations to the family home, which is
owned by his spouse and him. Mr. Mohit has immersed himself in Canadian culture,
namely by taking his son to hockey games, volunteering at his son’s school, and
travelling within Canada in an attempt to better know his adopted country. To
enhance his job prospects in Canada, Mr. Mohit took a $50,000.00 pay cut in
order to attend university on a full-time basis at the University of Toronto.
He is studying to improve his French-language skills. He has applied for work
in Canada and has networked extensively to further enhance his job prospects in
this country. He travels back and forth between his home in Richmond Hill and
his work in Cairo as often as possible, or, as the Judge states, “at every opportunity”. Mr. Mohit pays income tax in
Canada, is actively engaged in his son’s schooling, and has provided numerous
letters regarding his engagement in the community. Since completing his
graduate studies at the University of Toronto, he has been in Canada for at
least one week every two months.
[11]
These facts support a finding that
Mr. Mohit has maintained residence in Canada, despite his employment
abroad.
[12]
Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the
Judge’s decision meets the reasonableness standard as set out in Dunsmuir,
and elaborated upon in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’. The
application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. No question is
certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Email this Content