T-1998-96
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 |
| MAQSOOD AHMAD SHEHZEDA |
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver on
Tuesday, August 12, 1997 as edited)
ROTHSTEIN, J.
This is an appeal from a decision of a Citizenship Court judge refusing citizenship on account of the appellant's not having an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada as required by paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. In the course of examination on this appeal, it became apparent that the appellant does appear to have an adequate knowledge of English. He did not require an interpreter and was reasonably able to respond to questions asked.
However, in the course of the evidence, the appellant disclosed that he was landed in Canada in 1992 as a refugee and worked for approximately one year in farming near Chilliwack, then went to school for another year or perhaps a little longer and since that time has been on welfare. According to the evidence of the appellant, he has applied for a number of jobs but has been unable to find a job and has been on welfare for about the last three years. According to his evidence his future intention is to continue to be on welfare. I am not at all satisfied that this demonstrates an understanding and knowledge of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship required under paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act.
Undoubtedly many Canadian citizens as well as immigrants have found themselves on welfare, sometimes through no fault of their own. However, persons on welfare rely on the responsibility of other Canadians through the payment of their income taxes to support the welfare system. Where an individual expresses the view that he intends to continue on welfare indefinitely, I am not satisfied that he has demonstrated an understanding and a knowledge of the responsibility that all Canadian citizens have, to attempt to be fiscally responsible for their own welfare and to the extent possible, minimize their reliance on the welfare system.
In the circumstances, this matter is adjourned to give the appellant an opportunity to get himself off welfare and to find a job. The matter may be brought on summarily by way of conference call if the appellant is able to find a job and requests that the matter be reconvened. Provided a reasonable period of time has transpired and adequate proof that the appellant has a job is produced to the Court, the Court would look favourably upon the appeal. Otherwise, this matter will not be brought back before the Court until I am next in Vancouver which will not be for some months.
(Sgd.) "Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Winnipeg, Manitoba
August 15, 1997
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
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 |
MAQSOOD AHMAD SHEHZEDA
COURT NO.: T-1998-96
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: August 12, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ROTHSTEIN, J.
dated August 15, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Maqsood Ahmad Shehzeda for Appellant
Ms. Julie Fisher for Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Watson, Goepel, Maledy for Amicus Curiae
Vancouver, BC