Date: 19980218
Docket: T-2506-96
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
TAT TAK TONG
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JOYAL, J.
[1] On the facts of this case, it is not evident which way it should go. This is indeed a borderline case, as so often happens in matters involving the residency requirements under section 5 of the Citizenship Act ("the Act").
[2] In a well-considered judgment rendered by the Senior Citizenship Judge on October 10, 1996, the Citizenship Court considered that the appellant had not met the residency requirements of the statute, as per section 5, which stipulates residence in Canada for three years out of the four preceding the application for citizenship. On the facts before her, it is fair to say, the Senior Citizenship Judge had good reason to decide as she did.
[3] The Act, in providing for an appeal from the Citizenship Court to the Federal Court of Canada, in fact provides an unsuccessful applicant with the opportunity for what is in essence a trial de novo. Experience tells us that by the time such appeals reach this Court, the appellant will have realized the weakness of his or her case and will therefore be alerted to repairing them.
[4] That is exactly what happened in this case. I reviewed the facts, I heard the evidence of the appellant and listened to the submissions of his counsel. I noted that the amicus curiae expressed no objection. Therefore, with all due respect to the Senior Citizenship Judge below, I concluded that the appellant did meet the residency requirements of the statute and was therefore entitled to Canadian citizenship.
[5] The salient elements in this case may be summarized as follows:
| 1. The appellant became a landed immigrant in Canada on September 20, 1991, and joined his family, consisting of his parents and his sister, who were already here and who are all now Canadian citizens. |
|
| 2. During the early period following his arrival in Canada, for some two months, he lived with his family in Toronto and obtained his social insurance card and his health insurance card. He also opened bank accounts and went through other steps proving that he had come here to stay. |
|
| 3. His stay, however, was shortlived. He was soon seconded by his employer, Newbridge Network Corporation of Kanata, to its Far East operations. Newbridge is a large high tech firm, with sales at that time approaching some billion dollars. Although company shares have had a checkered record on the stock exchange, the company continues to be a dominant force in the telecommunications field. |
|
| 4. During the whole of the relevant period, the appellant was employed in Hong Kong by Newbridge, and became intensely involved in obtaining new markets in Asia for Newbridge products. His territory, I understand, covered Singapore, China, Taiwan and locations in between. His periods off-duty were spent in Toronto, with his parents. |
|
| 5. The appellant's time outside of Canada was spent exclusively in the furthering of Canada's economic interests through the marketing and sale of Canadian products to Far East countries. As such, he became intimately linked with Canadian business, with Canadian political and commercial institutions, and with the large Canadian community residing in Hong Kong. The influences to which he was exposed, as far as business ethics, methods and principles of management are concerned, were essentially Canadian. |
|
| 6. Married since 1995, he has sponsored his wife's application for permanent residence in Canada and expects approval shortly. |
|
[6] I should therefore conclude that the appellant has established a Canadian persona through his family and through his Canadian employer. It may well be stretching the residency doctrine as far as it should legally go, but I am satisfied that the appellant did not look upon Canada as a flag of convenience.
[7] The appeal is therefore allowed, and the Court declares the appellant to be entitled to Canadian citizenship.
L-Marcel Joyal
J U D G E
O T T A W A, Ontario
February 18, 1998.
Email this Content