Date: 19980123 Docket: T-1186-97
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 HOU WEI SHANG,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WETSTON J.
[1] The appellant appeals a decision of a Citizenship Court Judge dated April 30, 1997, refusing her application for citizenship on the basis that she did not meet the residency requirement for Canadian citizenship under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. According to the evidence the appellant's absences from Canada total 1233 days in the four years immediately preceeding her application which was October 9, 1996. During this period, she was physically present in Canada for 227 days. In this regard, the Citizenship Judge
Page: 2
noted that the appellant had to satisfy her that in order to meet the residency requirements the appellant's absences from Canada (or at least part of these) could be counted as a period of residence in Canada.
[2] In this regard, the appellant was landed in Canada on November 27, 1991, six months after her family landed, due to university studies in the United States. Five weeks after her landing the appellant returned to San Francisco to pursue her studies in marketing. The appellant had been studying at San Francisco State University since January 1990 and indicated that a transfer to a Canadian university would have been difficult due to the fact that she would have lost credits that she had earned at San Francisco State University. After her graduation she entered an MBA program at San Francisco State University and after obtaining her MBA degree she returned to Toronto. She has been living in Toronto with her family since March 1997. The appellant was originally from Taiwan and throughout the period in question was a student and was fully dependent on her family who, as indicated previously, were living in Toronto.
[3] According to the evidence, during the relevant period for determining residency, Ms. Shang, while returning to Canada, did not appear to work to any significant extent in Canada. She did pay Canadian taxes, held a Canadian social insurance number, as well as a driver's license. After the completion of her undergraduate degree, she indicated that she had applied to York and the University of Toronto but did not qualify for admission due to a lack of work experience. She did not apply for an MBA program at any other Canadian school.
Page: 3 [4] It was contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not have any status in the United States except as a student, that she had moved with her family and that she had no connection to Taiwan whatsoever. She was a full-time student and it was contended that the Citizenship Judge erred in not considering the fact that she had severed her ties with Taiwan and had no status in the United States. When she applied for landing in Canada she was already outside Taiwan and studying in a country where she never had residence.
[5] Can it be said that the appellant is a person who in mind and fact has centralized her ordinary mode of living with its accessories in social relations, interests and conveniences in Canada? The answer to this question is often most difficult in student cases. However, in this case, despite being a student, I am not satisfied that the appellant effectively established residence in Canada before making the decision to apply for Canadian citizenship. I am not satisfied that the quality of the appellant's attachment throughout her period of study and up to the date of her application for citizenship was such as to qualify the time that she spent pursuing her studies as a period of residence in Canada. In my opinion, paying taxes, obtaining a social insurance number or a driver's license are insufficient indicia of aggressively pursuing integration into the Canadian community and way of life. Rather, in this case, the evidence establishes that her attachment is more to her family, who live in Toronto, rather than her attachment to Canada in and of itself.
[6] There must be some evidence of an attachment to Canada, not just that there is no connection to any other country. It is obvious that citizenship cases are primarily determined
Page: 4 on their facts. Since my decision in Re Chung, (T-1912-96, May 28, 1997), 1 have considered the further jurisprudence of this court, in particular, the decisions of Gibson J., in Wai Cheong (T-137-97, November 5, 1997, F.C.T.D.) as well as Abdulhakim Salman, (T-711-97, November 24, 1997, F.C.T.D.).
[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Howard 1. Wetston
Ottawa, Ontario January 23, 1998
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1186-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: CITIZENSHIP ACT v. HOU WEI SHANG
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 20, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WETSTON
| DATED: January 23, 1998 |
|
| APPEARANCES |
|
| Mr. Lorne Waldman |
FOR APPELLANT |
| Mr. Peter K. Large |
FOR AMICUS CURIAE |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: |
|
| Waldman & Associates |
|
| Toronto, Ontario |
FOR APPELLANT |
| Mr. Peter K. Large |
|
| Toronto, Ontario |
FOR AMICUS CURIAE |