Mitchell (Re), docket T-2162-96

T-2162-96

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

HEATHER HOPE MITCHELL

Appellant.

REASONS FOR ORDER

     Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on October 8, 1997, be filed to comply with s. 51 of the Federal Court Act.

                             Howard I. Wetston

                                 Judge

     Court File No. T-2162-96

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N:

     HEATHER HOPE MITCHELL

     Applicant

     - and -

     CITIZENSHIP ACT

     Respondent

BEFORE:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WETSTON

DATE:      October 8th, 1997.

REGISTRAR:      R. CLAPHAM

     REASONS FOR DECISION

A P P E A R A N C E S:

MS. H.H. MITCHELL      The Applicant

P. LARGE, ESQ.      Amicus Curiae

     HIS LORDSHIP: In the matter of Heather Hope Mitchell I have considered the evidence before me, and it is clear that this matter is a de novo matter before the Court, but in my review of the evidence and the decision of the Citizenship Judge there appears to be no reference whatsoever to the mental condition of Ms. Mitchell.

     I am satisfied that efforts were made by Ms. Mitchell's parents to bring that to the attention of the officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada as well as the Citizenship Judge. What is particularly peculiar in this matter is the fact that it would appear that Judge Robertson held the hearing and the parents of Ms. Mitchell were not allowed to present any evidence at that hearing or to speak on her behalf because of her medical disability.

     What is peculiar as I mentioned a moment ago is the letter not approving citizenship makes no reference to mental disability nor is the letter signed by Judge Robertson. The letter is signed by a Judge Akbarali who does not appear to have been the Judge who conducted the citizenship hearing.

     It would appear to be a fundamental principle that he who hears must decide. I would suggest that that would apply to any official exercising a quasi judicial function as do these Judges in citizenship matters. Nevertheless, while I have no explanation as to what went on here I am of the opinion that given the evidence provided to me by Ms. Mitchell's parents, that Ms. Mitchell clearly suffers from some form of mental disability.

     On that basis it is my opinion that the appeal ought to be allowed and in this regard I would recommend that the Minister exercise a discretion on compassionate grounds pursuant to section 5(3)(c) of the Citizenship Act.

     CERTIFIED CORRECT,

     Lennox T. Brown, F.I.P.S.

     Verbatim Reporter