Hao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 46

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 09, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2011 FC 46;(2011), 383 F.T.R. 125 (FC)

Hao v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2011), 383 F.T.R. 125 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.001

Tingmei Hao (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(T-1073-10; 2011 FC 46)

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

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

January 28, 2011.

Summary:

A Citizenship Judge refused Hao's application for citizenship under s. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. He concluded that Hao's frequent travel to China to visit family, including a terminally ill grandfather, or to undertake and complete high school studies, prevented her from meeting the minimum requirement for physical presence in Canada (three years (1095 days) in the proceeding four years). Hao appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 2525

Naturalization - Qualifications - Residence - A Citizenship Judge refused Hao's application for citizenship under s. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act - Hao appealed - One issue was whether the Citizenship Judge erred in applying one of several tests for determining the residency requirements that had been previously approved by the court (the Pourghasemi/physical presence test) - Recently, some judges had adopted the view that just one test should prevail (the Koo/centralized existence in Canada test) - The Federal Court stated that it would be preferable to have consistency in the test applied to determine residency - However, several judges of the court had found that the physical presence test was appropriate on a plain reading of the statute - For over 11 years the court had deferred to decisions by citizenship judges to choose that interpretation over the alternative as a reasonable exercise of their discretion - While the inconsistent application of the law was unfortunate, it could not be said that every example of that inconsistency in this context was unreasonable - It remained for Parliament to correct the problem - See paragraph 50.

Aliens - Topic 2525

Naturalization - Qualifications - Residence - A Citizenship Judge refused Hao's application for citizenship under s. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act - He concluded that Hao's frequent travel to China to visit family, including a terminally ill grandfather, or to undertake and complete high school studies, prevented her from meeting the minimum requirement for physical presence in Canada (three years (1095 days) in the proceeding four years) - She was present in Canada for 972 days (i.e., 123 days short) - The Federal Court dismissed Hao's appeal - The decision below was not unreasonable - But for Hao's preference for an interpretation of the residency requirement that was more favourable to her personal circumstances, the merits of the decision had not been questioned - The application of the physical presence test to determine residency in this case was not unreasonable - Residency had not been established.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wang (2009), 360 F.T.R. 1; 87 Imm. L.R.(3d) 184; 2009 FC 1290, refd to. [para. 2].

Pourghasemi, Re (1993), 62 F.T.R. 122; 19 Imm. L.R.(2d) 259 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 11].

Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 51; 2006 FC 85, refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ryan, [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 790; 2009 FC 1159, refd to. [para. 11].

Pourzand v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 276; 71 Imm. L.R.(3d) 289; 2008 FC 395, refd to. [para. 12].

Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) v. Tovbin (2000), 190 F.T.R. 102; 10 Imm. L.R.(3d) 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Papadogiorgakis, Re, [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Harry, Re (1998), 144 F.T.R. 141; 77 A.C.W.S.(3d) 933 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Koo, Re (1992), 59 F.T.R. 27; 19 Imm. L.R.(2d) 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nandre (2003), 234 F.T.R. 245; 2003 FCT 650, refd to. [para. 17].

Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 164 F.T.R. 177; 87 A.C.W.S.(3d) 432 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wall (2005), 271 F.T.R. 146; 45 Imm. L.R.(3d) 32; 2005 FC 110, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zhou, [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 670; 2008 FC 939, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ntilivamunda, [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 781; 2008 FC 1081, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jeizan (2010), 386 F.T.R. 1; 2010 FC 323, refd to. [para. 23].

Lin (C.S.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 262; 21 Imm. L.R.(3d) 104; 2002 FCT 346, refd to. [para. 25].

Chen (Y.S.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 213 F.T.R. 137; 17 Imm. L.R.(3d) 222; 2001 FCT 1229, refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Takla (2009), 359 F.T.R. 248; 2009 FC 1120, refd to. [para. 27].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2009), 395 N.R. 52; 312 D.L.R.(4th) 294; 2009 FCA 309, leave to appeal granted (2010), 407 N.R. 387 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Board of Education (Roman Catholic) of Essex v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (2001), 150 O.A.C. 2; 56 O.R.(3d) 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

National Steel Car Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7135 (2006), 218 O.A.C. 207; 278 D.L.R.(4th) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Hydro Ottawa Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 (2007), 223 O.A.C. 114; 85 O.R.(3d) 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Ottawa Police Association v. Ottawa Police Services Board (2008), 233 O.A.C. 51 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 739; 183 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 32].

Chapman v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 221 F.T.R. 126; 2002 FCT 655, refd to. [para. 32].

Abdoulrab et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al. (2009), 251 O.A.C. 28; 95 Admin. L.R.(4th) 121; 2009 ONCA 491, refd to. [para. 33].

Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada et al. (2009), 255 O.A.C. 126; 311 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 2009 ONCA 628, refd to. [para. 34].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 37].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Elzubair, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 176; 2010 FC 298, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Cobos, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 602; 2010 FC 903, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Salim, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 645; 2010 FC 975, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Manas, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 683; 2010 FC 1056, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Abou-Zahra, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 708; 2010 FC 1073, refd to. [para. 42].

Dedaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 61; 2010 FC 777, refd to. [para. 42].

Ghaedi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 47; 2011 FC 85, refd to. [para. 42].

Dachan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 338; 2010 FC 538, refd to. [para. 44].

Savarian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 777; 2010 FC 1117, refd to. [para. 45].

Shubeilat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 381 F.T.R. 63; 2010 FC 1260, refd to. [para. 46].

Cardin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 382 F.T.R. 164; 2011 FC 29, refd to. [para. 47].

Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2006), 286 F.T.R. 281; 2006 FC 120, revd. (2007), 361 N.R. 90; 2007 FCA 73, refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

Aleksander Stojicevic, for the applicant;

Hilla Aharon, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Maynard Kishcer Stojicevic, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 9, 2010, by Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who filed the following reasons for judgment in Ottawa, Ontario, on January 28, 2011.