Date: 20070730
Docket: T-795-06
Citation: 2007 FC 795
Ottawa, Ontario, July 30, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
GHOLAMREZA
BEHBAHANI
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
On
March 10, 2006, a Citizenship Judge (the Judge) approved the Respondent’s
application for citizenship (the Decision). The Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration (the Minister) has appealed the Decision under subsection 14(5) of
the Citizenship Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-29 (the Act) on the basis that the
Judge failed to provide the Minister with reasons for the Decision.
[2]
The
requirement for such reasons is found in subsection 14(2) of the Act. It
states:
|
14. (2) Forthwith after making a determination
under subsection (1) in respect of an application referred to therein but
subject to section 15, the citizenship judge shall approve or not approve the
application in accordance with his determination, notify the Minister
accordingly and provide the Minister with the reasons therefor.
[my
emphasis]
|
14. (2) Aussitôt après avoir statué sur la
demande visée au paragraphe (1), le juge de la citoyenneté, sous réserve de
l’article 15, approuve ou rejette la demande selon qu’il conclut ou non à la
conformité de celle-ci et transmet sa décision motivée au ministre.
[je
souligne]
|
[3]
The
Decision is attached as Schedule “A” to these reasons. It does not explain why
the Respondent was given citizenship even though he did not meet the statutory
residency requirement (he was twenty-two days short) and even though, after
repeated requests, he did not provide Citizenship and Immigration with his
expired passports.
[4]
In
the circumstances of this case, reasons should have, inter alia,
described any documents the Respondent brought to the hearing and their impact
on the Decision and should have indicated the residency test the Judge used and
explained why he decided that the residency requirements in section 5 of the
Act had been met.
[5]
In
my view, because the box provided for reasons on Schedule “A” is blank and
because there are no other statements or endorsements which explain the Judge’s
thought process, the Judge failed to discharge his duty under subsection 14(2).
While Schedule “A” meets the notice requirement, it does not satisfy the
requirement to provide reasons.
JUDGMENT
UPON reviewing the
material filed and hearing the submissions of counsel for both parties in Vancouver, BC on
April 10, 2007;
AND UPON being advised
that the Judge is still a Citizenship Judge.
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that, for the reasons above, the appeal is allowed and the file is
referred back to the Judge who made the Decision. He is hereby ordered to
provide the Minister with written reasons for the Decision, in accordance with
these reasons within ninety (90) days of this order.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-795-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MCI
v. Gholamreza Behbahani
PLACE OF
HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF
HEARING: April
10, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: SIMPSON
J.
DATED: July
30, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Ms. Liliane
Bantourakis
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. Lorne
Waldman
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Mr. John H.
Sims, Q.C.
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. Lorne
Waldman
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content