Date: 19981105
Docket: T-2187-97
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
SAYNAB ALI NUUR
Appellant
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.:
[1] The appellant appeals a decision of a Citizenship Judge that refused to approve her application for citizenship on the ground that the appellant did not have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, as required by paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act.
[2] There is no doubt that part of the appellant's difficulties arise from her lack of facility in the English language. Indeed, her counsel criticized the process before the Citizenship Judge because the appellant had not been told she should bring an interpreter with her. I do not think this criticism is well founded. The Act requires an "adequate" knowledge of one of the two official languages. It requires an "adequate" knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. That is, both should be adequate to allow the appellant to participate in an independent manner in the political-governmental process, as a citizen, in a meaningful way (e.g. by voting). Indeed in Re Adolfo d'Intino, T-819-78 (July 5, 1998), this Court refused to allow the use of an interpreter by an appellant, in an appeal from a decision of a citizenship judge that had found the appellant lacked knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. A different approach was taken in Re Abdul-Hamid [1979] 1 F.C. 600 (T.D.), and the use of an interpreter was allowed. At the very least, in my view, an applicant should possess a sufficient comprehension of one of the two official languages, in either its written or spoken form, to enable him or her to exercise the privileges of citizenship.
[3] With respect to the knowledge of Canada required by paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Act, I am not persuaded that the appellant met the requirements. The fact that so much of her evidence had to be presented through an interpreter, not only her answers but also the putting of the questions, made it difficult to determine the extent to which she really had the requisite knowledge. She did answer a number of simple questions correctly, but not always with ease. There was a reluctance both on the part of her counsel and on the part of the amicus curiae to ask anything but the very simplest questions, presumably because of the difficulty she exhibited in answering simple questions.
[4] Indeed, her own counsel stressed the factors that she felt should have led the Citizenship Judge to recommend a ministerial waiver of the knowledge requirements. Counsel stressed that if an interpreter was not necessarily appropriate to help the appellant through the knowledge requirements of subsection 5(1)(e), an interpreter was at least appropriate to allow the Citizenship Judge to evaluate whether a waiver should be recommended. In support of her argument that a waiver should have been recommended, counsel referred to the fact that the appellant was illiterate in her own language, she had never received any formal education, she had married at 17 years of age, she came to Canada as a refugee from the civil war strife in Somalia, she had six children, she had never worked outside the home, her older children are now in University and she has only recently begun to take English language instruction.
[5] I formed the impression that the appellant is a very alert and intelligent individual, and that, with time, instruction and effort, she could likely acquire both an adequate knowledge of English and adequate knowledge of Canada and its governmental system to attain citizenship without the need of a ministerial waiver. She is relatively young and, as I have indicated, appears to be very able. I could not fault the Citizenship Judge for having failed to make a waiver recommendation.
[6] I was invited to conclude that because the appellant and her children have been maintained at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, through public assistance, since their arrival in Canada, this demonstrates a failure to understand the responsibilities of citizenship. I make no decision as to whether that is a relevant consideration. I have not taken it into account in making my decision.
[7] In summary, I cannot conclude that the appellant has met the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act. At the same time, it is always open to her to reapply for citizenship when she has improved her language skills and expanded her knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
"B. Reed"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
November 5, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-2187-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: 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 |
Appellant
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Alex Neve
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: South Etobicoke Community Legal Services
| 2970 Lakeshore Blvd. West, Suite 303 |
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981105
Docket: T-2187-97
| 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 |
Appellant
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content