Date: 19971114
Docket: T‑49‑97
BETWEEN:
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
THI
GIA TRAN,
Appellant.
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on
Wednesday, November 12, 1997, as edited)
ROTHSTEIN, J.:
[1] The
appellant appears to have a very minimal knowledge of English, and she has some
knowledge of Canada. However, I cannot conclude that she has an adequate
knowledge of both as required by the Citizenship Act.
[2] As
best as I can understand from the evidence of the appellant's son, the
appellant's husband now is on welfare. The appellant has a minimal part-time
job of some sort. Her children are not being supported by her. It seems they
have decided they can afford to leave the family home even though they are both
going to school and receiving some sort of government assistance to do so,
which apparently includes tuition and living expenses. They have no part-time
jobs. I would have thought the appellant would have attempted to influence her
children to remain at home to contribute to the economic wellbeing of the
family and minimize the family's reliance on public assistance in various
forms. These facts cause me not to be satisfied that the appellant really does
have a knowledge of the responsibilities associated with being a Canadian
citizen. All citizens have a responsibility, to the extent they are able, to
be self‑sufficient and parents and children should recognize an
obligation to assist each other financially when circumstances require. For
some reason not explained, the appellant has not herself undertaken these
obligations and apparently has not conveyed them to her sons. When these
obligations are not met, and there is no reasonable explanation why not, the
Court is left with serious doubt that the appellant understands the
responsibilities associated with citizenship.
[3] Further,
I think that for an appellant, as is the case here, to come before the Court
and say that she wants citizenship so that she can vote, and then have an
extremely limited knowledge of political parties, political leaders and the
like in Canada causes the Court to view with some skepticism the credibility of
the appellant.
[4] In the
circumstances, I must dismiss the appeal.
[5] Appellant's
counsel requested that the Court refer the matter to the Minister for him to
exercise his discretion to waive compliance with the requirement of an
appellant having knowledge of one of Canada's official languages and a
knowledge of Canada under subsection 5(3) of the Citizenship Act.
However, I am not satisfied, in view of the circumstances here, that this would
be an appropriate case for the Court to refer to the Minister. It is open to
the appellant to make that application herself, if she wishes to do so.
"Marshall E.
Rothstein"
Judge
TORONTO,
ONTARIO
November
14, 1997
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
Names
of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-49-97
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
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
THI
GIA TRAN
DATE
OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 12, 1997
PLACE
OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: NOVEMBER
14, 1997
APPEARANCES: Mr. Calvin
Huong
For
the Appellant
Mr.
Peter K. Large
Amicus
Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: G.J. Abols
Law Office
Suite
1900
700
Bay Street
Toronto,
Ontario
M5G
1Z6
For
the Appellant
Peter
K. Large
Barrister
and Solicitor
610-372
Bay Street
Toronto,
Ontario
M5H
2W9
Amicus
Curiae
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19971114
Docket: T‑49-97
BETWEEN:
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
THI
GIA TRAN,
Appellant
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
Email this Content