Date: 19971104
Docket: T-2207-96
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S. 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
| decision of a Citizenship Judge |
AND IN THE MATTER OF
Ching Chi Paul Chang,
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GIBSON, J.:
[1] The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Citizenship Court denying his application for a grant of Canadian citizenship.
[2] The learned Citizenship Court Judge found that the appellant, who obtained landed immigrant status in Canada on March 29, 1991, had met all the requirements for citizenship set out in the Citizenship Act except for the requirement of residence set out in paragraph 5(1)(c) of that Act. The appellant's absences from Canada in the four years proceeding the date of his application for citizenship amounted to 967 days leaving him some 602 days short of the required 1,095 days of residence.
[3] Prior to his landing in Canada with his wife, daughter and two sons, the appellant twice visited Canada. During those trips he bought a home in the greater Toronto region and furniture and a car and enrolled his daughter in school in Canada. Upon landing, he acquired additional furniture and attended to the decorating of the new family home. He arranged for schooling for his two sons and he familiarized himself with the greater Toronto area. Then he returned to his country of former residence, Taiwan, to substantially windup his business there and to await the completion of the Taiwan school year of his two sons. He and his sons then returned to Canada.
[4] Since that time, the appellant's business activities have involved a regular pattern of absences from Canada. However, the focus of his business activities shifted from his Taiwan business to a new business that he established in Canada in 1992 that nonetheless involved frequent travel to the far-east, including Taiwan. Apart from occasional travel outside Canada on holidays, when the appellant travels, neither his wife nor any of his children travels with him.
[5] The evidence before me established to my satisfaction that the appellant has established all of the normal indicia of residence here in Canada and, in addition, has effectively integrated himself into the social life of his community. His wife and children all became Canadian citizens in 1995.
[6] Mr. Justice Dubé recently considered the citizenship appeal of Lui-Tsun James Yen, an appeal on facts remarkably similar to those before me. I find the following words from Mr. Justice Dubé's reasons for judgment allowing that appeal to be fully applicable on the facts before me:
| As I had the occasion to state in the Siu Chung Hung citizenship case1, which is quite similar to this one, "the place of residence of a person is not where that person works but where he or she returns to after work". Where an applicant for citizenship has clearly and definitively established a home in Canada with the transparent intention of maintaining permanent roots in this country, he ought not to be deprived of citizenship merely because he has to earn his livelihood and that of his family by doing business offshore. Some Canadian residents may work from their own home, others return home after work every day, others every week, and others after longer periods abroad. The most eloquent indicia of residency is the establishment of a person and his family in the country, coupled with a manifest intention of making the establishment their permanent home. |
[7] On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the appellant has clearly established a home in this country with the manifest intention of maintaining his permanent residence here. While his work regularity takes him out of Canada, when he returns after work, he returns to his home, his family and community in Canada. In the result, I allowed this appeal and recommended that the appellant be granted Canadian citizenship.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
November 4, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-2207-96
| STYLE OF CAUSE: 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 |
| CHING CHI PAUL CHANG |
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 4, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 4, 1997
APPEARANCES: Mr. Bina Behboodi
For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Martinello & Associates
208-255 Duncan Mill Road
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19971104
Docket: T-2207-96
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 |
| CHING CHI PAUL CHANG, |
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
__________________
1 T-384-95, January 26, 1996, not reported.