Date: 19971124
Docket: T-137-97
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
Wai Cheong (William) Lee,
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GIBSON, J.:
[1] This appeal was heard before me at Toronto, Ontario on the 5th of November, 1997. The appellant appeals a decision of a Citizenship Court Judge, dated the 29th of November, 1996, refusing his application for citizenship on the basis that he did not meet the residency requirement for Canadian citizenship under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. He was short some 688 days of the required 1,095 days in the four year period proceding the date of his application for citizenship.
[2] According to the evidence that was before the learned Citizenship Court Judge and before me, the appellant arrived in Canada with his parents and siblings on the 9th of December, 1992 and was landed on that day. For some years before that time, the appellant had studied in the United Kingdom. He had recently completed an undergraduate degree at Manchester Metropolitan University.
[3] Upon landing, the appellant and his family members moved into a home in Richmond Hill, Ontario. The appellant applied for post-graduate studies at the University of Toronto but was quickly advised that he would not be eligible without work experience in Canada and a further year of undergraduate studies. He apparently made inquiries at one or more other Canadian universities with similar results. The appellant established a bank account, applied for credit cards, obtained a library card and other usual indicia of establishment in Canada.
[4] In March, 1993, the appellant returned to the United Kingdom to explore the possibility of undertaking graduate studies at the same university where he had obtained his undergraduate degree. The result of discussions was positive. He returned to Canada in mid-May of 1993 and spent the summer here. The evidence disclosed little of integration into the community in which he lived with his parents and siblings. He returned to the United Kingdom, briefly, in September of 1993, again returned to Canada, and finally commenced post-graduate studies in the United Kingdom at the end of October, 1993.
[5] The appellant did not again return to Canada until the end of November 1995. Through his period of studies, he maintained a room in his parents' home with most of his personal effects remaining there and only so much as was necessary for his period of studies taken with him to the United Kingdom. He lived in rented accommodation in the United Kingdom. He maintained his library card and other indicia of establishment in Canada, throughout his period of study. He was careful to obtain a returning resident's visa that would ensure his right of re-entry to Canada following his studies.
[6] The appellant completed his post-graduate studies in the late summer or early autumn of 1995. After a tour of Europe, he returned to his parents' home in Canada. Although he conducted a job search, he was unable to find employment that would utilize the knowledge acquired through his studies. In October of 1996, he accepted employment as a travel agent. He continued in that employment to the date of the hearing before me while acknowledging that it produced insufficient income to fully support himself. Before me, he expressed the ambition to ultimately obtain employment in Canada utilizing his acquired knowledge.
[7] Once again, in the period following his return to Canada to the date of the hearing before me, the appellant provided little evidence of effective integration into Canadian society.
[8] In reasons for judgment on the citizenship appeals of Chi Tai Wong and Chi Yuen Wong1, I adopted the following passage from Re Lee2:
| |
I have no doubt that the appellant would make an excellent citizen of Canada. She has been studying in England since she was sixteen and is presently completing medical studies at the University of Cambridge. She came to Canada on May 24, 1991, along with her parents and siblings. The whole family became landed immigrants on that date. The appellant left two days later to return to the United Kingdom, to continue her studies there. |
|
| |
She applied for citizenship on July 4, 1994. Within the preceding four year period she had resided in Canada for one hundred and sixty-five days. She was short 930 of the 1,095 days of residence required by the Citizenship Act. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that she has satisfied the residency requirements of the Act. |
|
| |
It is argued that her centralized mode of existence is in Canada because her family is here and because the quality of her residence in the United Kingdom has been as a student. I cannot so conclude. She is not a minor. Her chosen profession is one with respect to which it is well-known there are substantial barriers to entry in Canada for persons not trained in Canada. She has been a student in the United Kingdom, now for many years. Perhaps one day she will come to Canada and fulfil the residency requirements. In that case she will be entitled to citizenship. I sincerely hope she does so because, as I have indicated, I am of the view that she would be an excellent addition to our citizenry. |
|
[8] I am satisfied that, generally speaking, the same can be said on the facts before me. While it cannot be said in respect of this appellant that there are "substantial barriers to entry in Canada for persons not trained in Canada" in his field of study, he has nonetheless, to this point in time, not been successful in finding employment within Canada in his chosen field. I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that he has aggressively pursued such employment. Further, the evidence does not establish that he has aggressively pursued integration into the Canadian community and way of life. Rather, the evidence indicates that his attachment is more to his family which is here in Canada than to Canada itself.
[9] Counsel for the appellant referred me to a number of decisions of this Court, also on facts similar to those of this matter, where appeals were granted in favour of the applicant for citizenship. I will refer only to one of those decisions, that being a decision of Mr. Justice Nadon in the matter of Emilie Ernestine Ebba Hooft3. In that decision, Mr. Justice Nadon cites the following passage from the reasons of Mr. Justice Muldoon in Re Pourghasemi4. Mr. Justice Muldoon wrote:
| |
One may ask: So what if the would-be citizen be away at school or university? What is the urgency? If the candidate cannot find an adequate school or university in Canada, let him or her study abroad and then come back to Canada in order to comply the residence requirement. |
|
[10] I adopt this passage. Canadian citizenship is a privilege; it deserves to be earned. If that takes additional time where an applicant such as the appellant here chooses to study abroad so be it.
[11] I am not satisfied that the appellant in this matter effectively established residence in Canada before making the decision to return to the United Kingdom to pursue post-graduate studies and then leaving to actually undertake those studies. Nor am I satisfied that the quality of the appellant's attachment throughout his time of study and up to the date of his application for citizenship was such as to qualify the time that he spent pursuing his studies as a period of residence in Canada.
[12] The appellant has returned to Canada. He is now accumulating days of residence in Canada which will stand to his credit if he chooses, at a later date, to reapply for Canadian citizenship. I am satisfied that his application for Canadian citizenship giving rise to this appeal was substantially premature.
[12] In the result, by judgment dated the 5th of November, 1997, I dismissed this appeal.
_________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-137-97
| 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: NOVEMBER 5, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: NOVEMBER , 1997
APPEARANCES: Mr. Christopher J. Roper
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Suite 700, 1 First Canadian Place
100 King Street, West
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1C7
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 199711--
Docket: T-137-96
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
__________________
1 [1997] F.C.J. No. 1266 (QL)
2 [1996] F.C.J. No. 33 (QL)
3 [1997] F.C.J. No. 812 (QL)
4 [1993] F.C.J. No. 232 (QL)
Email this Content