T-1332-97
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant,
- and -
TSZ NGAN SINN
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------
P R O C E E D I N G S
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
Court Room No. 4
330 University Avenue, 8th Floor
on Wednesday, the 8th day of September, 1999
----------------------------------------------
DECISION ONLY
R E G I S T R A R: R. Clapham
C O U N S E L:
L. JAAKKIMAINEN (Ms.) For the Applicant
P. LARGE, Esq. Amicus Curiae
I N D E X O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Page No.
Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 5
---Decision commences:
THE COURT: Here is my decision.
This is an appeal by the Minister from a decision of a citizenship judge dated April 21st 1997. The respondent was served by registered mail with a notice of hearing for today's date. The respondent failed to appear for the hearing.
I have listened to the comments made by the amicus curiae with regard to the fact that had we had more information with regard to the respondent and whether or not she is now living full-time in Canada, that the most practical way of dealing with this matter would be to dismiss the appeal, because in fact the respondent would have spent sufficient time in Canada. Although that may be true, that has really nothing whatsoever to do with the appeal that's before me today.
In looking at the decision of the citizenship judge, it is obvious that the citizenship judge erred right from the very beginning, let alone the legal aspect as to whether or not the respondent ever established residency here or established a principal residence at 12 Leach Gate in Richmond Hill. I am satisfied that it was impossible for the respondent to have established a principal residence at 12 Leach Gate, Richmond Hill, Ontario when she came to Canada as she didn't live there.
In addition, the respondent came to Canada on April 15th 1992, and left Canada on April 29th 1992. She was in Canada for 14 days. I ask myself, and it's a rhetorical question, how one can establish a residence in 14 days.
| The citizenship judge speaks and says in the decision, "During the time between landing and their first absence from Canada --." I assume that it is the respondent and possibly the rest of the family when the citizenship judge uses the word "their" first absence. "They established a pied-à-terre by completing the following: applied for and obtained the following social insurance number; applied for and obtained medical coverage under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan; obtained driving privileges in Ontario, that is a driver's license; opened a bank account with the Hong Kong Bank of Canada; and filed income tax returns." |
All within 14 days? With all due respect to the citizenship judge, I don't know how one could arrive at that conclusion.
The appeal is allowed, the decision of the citizenship judge is set aside, and the respondent, if able to file a new application and if that respondent can fulfil the necessary conditions, can file a new application for citizenship.
Thank you.
| THE USHER: Order, please; all rise. |
THE COURT: Thank you both.
| MR. LARGE: Thank you, my Lord. |
THE REGISTRAR: This special sitting of the Federal Court is now concluded.
---Whereupon, court proceedings in this matter were concluded at 3:32 p.m..
The foregoing is CERTIFIED to be a true and accurate transcription of
| my stenomask recording, to the best |
---------------------
Quality Control Dept.
as per:-----------------------------
SUSAN LAVENDER, Court Reporter
Toronto, Ontario
Telephone: (416) 366-8623
Dated: September 21, 1999.
Email this Content