Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wang, 2009 FC 1290

• Judge: Mandamin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2009 FC 1290;(2009), 360 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

Can. (M.C.I.) v. Wang (2009), 360 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.024

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (applicant) v. Fang Wang (respondent)

(T-1871-08; 2009 FC 1290)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wang

Federal Court

Mandamin, J.

December 18, 2009.

Summary:

A Citizenship Judge approved Fang Wang's October 1, 2008 application for citizenship pursuant to s. 14(5) of the Citizenship Act. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that the judge gave inadequate reasons for his decision.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the decision below and remitted the matter to a different citizenship judge for reconsideration.

Aliens - Topic 2510

Naturalization - General - Duties of Citizenship judge - A Citizenship Judge approved Fang Wang's application for citizenship pursuant to s. 14(5) of the Citizenship Act - The Notice to the Minister form signed by the judge stated that Wang satisfied all the citizenship requirements and gave the following reasons: "After reviewing the Applicants documents and the information shared with me I am satisfied that the Applicant meets the residence criteria." - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought judicial review, arguing that the judge gave inadequate reasons for his decision - Wang argued that the form provided limited space for the judge's reasons and more extensive reasons were not required - The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the decision below and remitted the matter to a different Citizenship Judge for reconsideration - The requirement that the judge provide clear and adequate reasons had to prevail over any apparent constraint imposed by a form - Section 14(2) required the judge to give reasons when he notified the Minister - The judge did not outline the information he considered respecting Wang's residency - He neither made reference to the nature of information received nor did he refer to documents he reviewed at the hearing - He simply stated a conclusion to the effect that after reviewing documents and information he was satisfied Wang met the residence criteria - The judge had a statutory duty under s. 14(2) of the Act to provide reasons - He did not comply with his duty and his decision therefore could not stand - See paragraphs 26 to 38.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Aliens - Topic 2510 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahmoud (2009), 339 F.T.R. 273; 2009 FC 57, refd to. [para. 15].

Pourzand v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 276; 2008 FC 395, refd to. [para. 18].

Andryanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2007), 308 F.T.R. 292; 2007 FC 186, refd to. [para. 18].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mueller, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 113; 2005 FC 227, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hung, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 764 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lau, [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 126 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

R.D.R. Construction Ltd. v. Rent Review Commission (N.S.) (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 71; 114 A.P.R. 71; 139 D.L.R.(3d) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 33].

Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 279; 2008 FC 391, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, sect. 14(2) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (5th Ed. 2009), p. 374 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Catherine Vasilaros, for the applicant;

Matthew Jeffery, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Matthew Jeffery, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 24, 2009, by Mandamin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 18, 2009.