Date: 20010323
Docket: T-1948-00
OTTAWA, Ontario, March 23, 2001
BEFORE: Rouleau J.
Between:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Plaintiff
And:
SADI WASSIF CHEICK
Defendant
JUDGMENT
[1] The appeal is allowed.
|
P. ROULEAU JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010323
Docket: T-1948-00
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 234
Between:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Plaintiff
And:
SADI WASSIF CHEICK
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an appeal pursuant to s. 14(5) of the Citizenship Act from a decision of a citizenship judge, Jeannine Beaubien, on August 22, 2000 approving the citizenship application of Sadi Wassif Cheikh.
[2] Mr. Cheikh was born in Cameroon in 1945. He holds French nationality. He became a permanent resident of Canada on July 17, 1987 with his wife and three children.
[3] Mr. Cheikh filed his citizenship application of September 4, 1999. Of the four-year period between September 4, 1995 and September 4, 1999, Mr. Cheikh was apparently absent from Canada for 1,231 days.
[4] On August 22, 2000 the citizenship judge granted Mr. Cheikh citizenship.
[5] The plaintiff sought an order quashing the citizenship judge's decision as he argued that Mr. Cheikh did not meet the conditions of the rule for interpreting physical presence in Canada, since he lacked 865 days of the 1,095 days required by the Act. The plaintiff further argued that the citizenship judge's analysis did not comply with the rules laid down by the courts, as Mr. Cheikh's ties to Canada during the period when he was outside the country were minimal and the judge's analysis did not take evidence in the record into account. The fact of settling his family in Canada did not establish that he had centralized his ordinary mode of living in Canada.
[6] In my opinion, it is clear the citizenship judge applied the liberal approach introduced by Re: Papadogiorgakis, [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (T.D.), when she decided to award Mr. Cheikh's citizenship, as he clearly did not meet the condition of physical presence in Canada.
[7] Having said that, the citizenship judge's decision was not adequate to demonstrate the validity of her conclusion that Mr. Cheikh had well-defined roots in Canada. The exhibit filed by Mr. Cheikh, including the driving licence and social insurance card, only serve to show that he had been issued a licence and a social insurance number. The documentary evidence of the purchase of a residence and the payment of insurance premiums and taxes did not in any way
establish in the case at bar that Mr. Cheikh had "in mind and fact settle[d] into or maintain[ed] or centralize[d] his ordinary mode of living with its accessories in social relations, interests and conveniences at or in the place in question".
[8] I acknowledge that some of the absences from Canada were prompted by the fact that Mr. Cheikh is engaged in the specialized occupation of hydro-driller. However, the citizenship judge's decision makes no reference to this fact and this evidence is not as such conclusive of the fact that Mr. Cheikh had established a real tie to Canada.
[9] It follows that, from the insufficient evidence showing that Mr. Cheikh had significant ties to Canada and the failure to analyse the evidence, the citizenship application was premature and so the appeal is allowed.
|
P. ROULEAU JUDGE |
OTTAWA, Ontario
March 23, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1948-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
v. Sadi Wassif Cheikh
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 8, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Rouleau J.
DATED: March 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Sadi Wassif Cheikh DEFENDANT FOR HIMSELF
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario