Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-05-22
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 519
File numbers
T-1482-00
Decision Content
Date: 20010522
Docket: T-1482-00
Neutral Citation : 2001 FCT 519
BETWEEN:
SUNNY KUE YUEN LAI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J.
[1] This is an appeal (application) by Sunny Kue Yuen Lai to the Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division from a decision of a Citizenship Judge dated July 26, 2000 refusing the Appellant's application for Canadian citizenship.
[2] The main reason for the Citizenship Judge for refusing the application for Citizenship was that it was the opinion of the Citizenship Judge that the Appellant could not meet the residence requirements of the Citizenship Act.
[3] Immediately after I heard the submissions of both counsel, I informed counsel that I would allow the appeal.
[4] The reason for allowing the appeal is that after a review of the written material and after considering the oral submissions of counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the Citizenship Judge erred in fact and in law in her decision of July 26, 2000.
[5] The Appellant, his wife and two children obtained Landed Immigrant Status on July 15, 1994. They, at first, lived with their relatives until September 14, 1994, when they moved into their own home. The two children are full time students.
[6] Both the Appellant's wife and his two children are citizens of Canada.
[7] Before the Appellant's immigration to Canada, he worked as a merchandiser in Hong Kong. It is important to note that he terminated his employment in Hong Kong before his immigration to Canada and, after arriving in Canada in July of 1994 he looked for employment in merchandising or sales in Canada with companies such as Walmart and Sears but was unable to find work. He looked for work in Canada from July, 1994 to December, 1994.
[8] The Appellant states, that after being unable to find work in Canada and knowing, that he had an obligation to support his family, he decided he had to return to Hong Kong to try to find work. He did find work as a Director of Export Operations for a Toy Manufacturer, Toytrade Creation Company Ltd. This company, Toytrade, is not the company for whom the Appellant had previously been working.
[9] The Appellant was offered a two year employment contract. He negotiated an employment term to provide a four week no pay leave after every four months of employment. He was also provided with free staff housing. The Appellant has always returned home, to Calgary, to be with his wife and children during his four weeks off from work.
[10] During his return home, the evidence is that he spent his time with his wife and children and, as much as he could, travelled in Canada to better familiarize himself with Canada.
[11] I am satisfied that the above facts leads me to believe that the Appellant has satisfied the residence requirements of the Citizenship Act.
[12] The Appellant came to Canada with the intention to remain in Canada. It is important, as an immigrant, to try to find work. This the Appellant tried to do but was unable to do so. There is no evidence to contradict what the Appellant states that he seriously tried to find work in Canada.
[13] This, in itself, would not be sufficient to satisfy me that he fulfilled the residence requirement of the Act. In addition one must become "Canadianized". The Appellant returns to Canada every fifth month. He has been doing this since 1995. When he returns to Canada he remains with his wife and children and travels within Canada. Surely, spending this amount of time in Canada would have familiarized the Appellant with the rights and obligations of a Canadian citizen.
[14] I am satisfied that it was always the intention of the Appellant to "learn" the ways of being a law abiding Canadian citizen and to have his family live and grow up in Canada.
[15] The present appeal is allowed and it is recommended that the Appellant be granted his Canadian citizenship.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J. F. C. C.
Calgary, Alberta
May 22, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20010522
Docket: T-1482-00
BETWEEN:
SUNNY KUE YUEN LAI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1482-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sunny Kue Yuen Lai v. The Minister
of Citizenship and immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: May 18, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY TEITELBAUM, J.
DATED: May 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Dora Y. Lam, Q.C. FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
GERMAN, FONG, ALBUS, LAM
CALGARY, Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT