Date: 20000515
Docket: T-218-99
BETWEEN:
MINNIE KLEIN
Applicant
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an application under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act for judicial review of the decision of a Citizenship Judge dated December 16, 1998 denying the applicant"s application for citizenship.
[2] The applicant, Minnie Klein, was born in New York, United States on June 9, 1923. She arrived in Canada on March 5, 1944, as a permanent resident. Shortly thereafter she married Mr. Hyman Klein, a Canadian citizen.
[3] On May 14, 1997, the applicant filed an application for Canadian citizenship. I suspect that she overlooked becoming a citizen because, having lived in this country since 1944 and having married a Canadian citizen, she presumed that citizenship was automatically awarded.
[4] The applicant is the sole owner of a condominium in Montreal since June 5, 1985. She was the sole owner and shareholder of a company, Melvin Fruit Inc., in Montreal from 1961 until it ceased operations in 1996. Upon completing her application for citizenship, she indicated that she had been absent from Canada usually for the first three months of every year commencing in January. She was vacationing in Florida, not only to visit relatives but because she suffers from asthma and her husband has coronary problems; the warm weather enhances their qualify of life.
[5] Unfortunately, when completing her application and indicating her absences in the four years immediately preceding her application, one year was double counted therefore indicating 400 days of absence. This was not commented on by the Citizenship Judge but clearly the applicant would have only been absent some 300 days rather than 400 days as indicated.
[6] I allowed this appeal from the Bench and indicated that I would subsequently write reasons.
[7] When the applicant appeared before the Citizenship Judge on August 14, 1998, the Judge indicated to her that she was not satisfied with verbal assurances given to her by the applicant with respect to residence and requested further documentary evidence in order to satisfy her that the applicant resided in Canada during the previous four years. The Judge had some doubts as to the actual residency and she allowed Mrs. Klein 10 days in which to provide such additional evidence.
[8] In the Court file and obviously in the Immigration Office file, there is a covering letter dated August 20, 1998 addressed to Canada Citizenship and Immigration which enclosed documents which the applicant felt would satisfy the Citizenship Judge as to her residency. Federal income tax returns for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 were provided as well as the applicant"s provincial income tax return for 1997. There was further enclosed a letter from the manager of the condominium association where the applicant had been a resident who certified that Minnie Klein had been a resident in the apartment building for 13 years. This address is the same as the address disclosed in the income tax returns. The applicant further attached a municipal assessment in her name, received from the municipality for the year 1998 for the same address as disclosed by the manager of the building she occupied. Finally, the last letter enclosed which was dated August 20, 1998 came from General Trust of Canada indicating that Minnie Klein had maintained a bank account with the institution since 1987.
[9] This applicant had been married to a Canadian citizen since 1944. Her husband served with the Canadian Armed Forces from September 1942 to August 1945.
[10] In her decision which was dated December 16, 1998, some four months after the hearing and the filing of additional evidence, the Citizenship Judge wrote:
| ... Since I had doubts that you actually resided in Canada in the last four years, I requested additional documentation from you. Unfortunately, you were unable to furnish satisfactory proof of residence in Canada. |
[11] This is the only reason given in the Judge"s decision on which she relied to disallow the applicant her citizenship. These reasoning and conclusions are ridiculous. I am further enraged by the fact that, in the document which she provided the Minister under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, the Judge gives additional reasons why this applicant should be denied citizenship but which are not referred to in her final decision. In the boxes that are to be checked in the first page of the application, the Judge indicated that she was not satisfied that the applicant complied with the language requirements and that she had not complied with paragraph 5(1)(e) with respect to knowledge of Canada.
[12] I spoke with Mrs. Klein. English is her mother tongue. She was raised in New York and has lived in Montreal all of her adult life. There was no reasons whatsoever to suggest that this lady did not comply with the language requirement.
[13] Furthermore, with respect to the applicant"s knowledge of Canada, there was no evidence anywhere that she was tested in this field, nor was this referred to in the Citizenship Judge"s judgment.
[14] I allowed this appeal from the Bench without hesitancy. After I reviewed the contents of this file, I am satisfied that this Citizenship Judge is either improperly trained or totally lacks objectivity.
[15] Here, we have an individual who married a Canadian citizen in 1944; whose husband served in the Canadian Armed Forces for three years; who ran a business in this country from 1961 until she discontinued the operations in 1996. There was also evidence that she owned a condominium for at least 15 years. She produced income tax returns from both federal and provincial governments, municipal assessments confirming her ownership and she, like many other Canadians in their twilight years because of health and aging, spent three months in Florida in the winter.
[16] She was denied citizenship by a Judge who showed complete disinterest in analysing properly the documents on file and who further suggested in her report to the Minister that the applicant did not satisfy the language and knowledge requirements. This is an absurdity.
[17] The application is allowed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 15, 2000
Email this Content