Date: 19980127
Docket: T-2711-96
BETWEEN:
| IN THE MATTER OF THE Citizenship Act, |
|
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the |
|
| decision of a Citizenship Judge |
|
| AND IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW CHUN KUEN WONG |
|
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Issued from the Bench on January 20, 1998,
in Toronto, Ontario, edited)
WETSTON J.
[1] Mr. Rotenberg, as you know, the requirements to obtain citizenship are more than factual, but also legal, in the sense of statutory requirements.
[2] The sense that I have in participating in these matters, and reviewing the decisions of the Court, as well as those of the citizenship judges, is that there is a necessity to look at the facts objectively in order to determine if there is a transparent and manifest intention on the part of an applicant to make Canada his home.
[3] It is clear to me that permanent residents can make Canada their home, and the main legal difference is whether or not the requirements of the Act have been met.
[4] Mr. Large was kind enough to point out the various tests that judges of this Court have utilized, and it is not simply a matter of checking off various criteria and saying, "Three for; three against," or "Two for; four against." In summary, it would appear that the test is whether the applicant has centralized his mode of living in Canada, both in fact and law.
[5] It is clear Mr. Wong has met all the other requirements; the only issue being that of residency.
[6] There is also no question in my mind that, if you look at his physical presence in Canada, it was clearly on the low end for an individual seeking to create an attachment to this country. In that regard, I think Judge Appel was right in asking herself the question whether or not those days could nevertheless still be counted towards residency in Canada because physical presence is not the only way to satisfy the Act.
[7] In hearing the evidence and the submissions, I am satisfied that upon arriving in Canada, Mr. Wong attempted to establish himself by buying a home, bringing his family to Canada, and while I do not have all of the details with respect to this citizenship, that his wife and his children, his mother and brother are all citizens.
[8] Nevertheless, one has to look at the individual circumstances of the applicant, not only his family. Mr. Rotenberg, the evidence suggests that, for the most part, Mr. Wong's activities abroad were oriented towards business projects that were to be established in Canada, whether it is the granite business in Quebec, or hockey rinks in Vancouver, or an ESL school in Whistler. He obviously used his network of family and business associates to try and raise money, or to capitalize the projects, but they were all destined to be established in one way or another in Canada.
[9] I think, on an objective basis, all of these businesses and enterprises or efforts towards establishing these business and enterprises should not detract from his manifest intention to centralize his mode of living in Canada.
[10] I do not think there is any question that an individual could always do more. It is clear that Mr. Wong is an entrepreneur and that all the other indicia of citizenship appear to have been met. As such, while physical residency, as I indicated before, appears to have been on the low end, I am of the opinion that his absences should be included, since he has, in fact and in law, centralized his mode of living in Canada. In this regard, I shall allow the appeal.
"Howard I. Wetston"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 27, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-2711-96
| STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF the Citizenship Act, |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 20, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: WETSTON, J.
DATED: JANUARY 27, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Cecil Rotenberg
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C.
255 Duncan Mill Road, Suite 808
Don Mills, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980127
Docket: T-2711-96
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF the Citizenship Act,
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Email this Content