T-2047-95
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
ROBERTO
HENRIQUEZ GOMEZ,
Appellant.
J
U D G M E N T
DENAULT J.:
The appellant
has appealed from a decision of a citizenship judge denying his application for
citizenship on the ground that he did not meet the residence requirements set
out in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Under that
paragraph, a person who applies for citizenship must have accumulated at least
three years of residence in Canada within the four years immediately preceding
the date of his application.
The appellant
arrived in Canada as a permanent resident on April 23, 1991, and filed his
application for citizenship on September 13, 1994. The essence of the
citizenship judge's decision is found in one paragraph in which she states:
[translation]
At the
interview, I had doubts as to your residence in Canada and I asked you to provide
me with additional documents. Unfortunately you were unable to provide me with
satisfactory evidence of your residence in Canada.
At the hearing
of this appeal, the appellant testified under oath and referred to the
documents that had been filed before the citizenship judge. Although the
citizenship judge said no more on the point, it appears that her doubts arose
from the fact that the lease for the unit the appellant occupied with his
female companion from July 1, 1993, to July 30, 1995, was signed only by his
companion, although the evidence does establish that from August 1, 1992, to
July 31, 1993, the appellant and his companion were cohabiting - they have
three children aged 20, 19 and 16 - in a unit for which they had both signed
the lease. The same is true of the lease signed for the period from July 1,
1995, to June 31, 1996. I find that the fact that the appellant had not signed
the lease for the period from July 1, 1993, to July 30, 1995 is not sufficient
to create any doubt as to his residence in Canada during that period,
particularly since his employment income for 1993 and 1994 is further evidence
to the contrary.
There is one
other factor in this case which justifies the Court in intervening. It appears
that from the date when the appellant obtained permanent resident status (April
23, 1991) to the date of his application for citizenship (September 13, 1994),
the appellant left Canada only for a period of 67 days between February 19 and
April 26, 1994. That period of absence (67 days), together with the fact that
he made his application for citizenship prematurely, still
adds up to only 289 days. In short, the appellant resided in Canada for more
than three years before making his application for citizenship.
For these
reasons, the appeal is allowed.
OTTAWA, February 14, 1997
PIERRE DENAULT
J.F.C.C.
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL
DIVISION
NAMES OF
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: T-2047-95
STYLE OF CAUSE: Citizenship
Act
-and-
Roberto
Henriquez Gomez
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February
11, 1997
JUDGMENT OF DENAULT J.
DATED: February
14, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Roberto Henriquez Gomez For
himself
Jean Caumartin Amicus
Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean Caumartin
Montréal, Quebec Amicus
Curiae