[2011] 2 F.C.R. D-9
Citizenship and Immigration
Status in Canada
Permanent Residents
Judicial review of decision of Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of Immigration and Refugee Board finding that respondent meeting residency obligation imposed on permanent residents under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 28—Respondent Chinese citizen working in China for Investissement Québec on open-ended contract—IAD determining Investissement Québec provincial public service within meaning of Act, s. 28(2)(a)(iii), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 61(3), respondent “assigned full-time as a term of one’s employment to a position outside Canada” within meaning of s. 61(3)—IAD noting words must not be interpreted in same way as “assigned abroad” within meaning of Protocole d’entente entre la Ministre des Relations internationales et la Société Investissement Québec concernant la présence de représentants d’Investissement Québec au sein des représentations du Québec à l’étranger (Memorandum)—IAD referring to definitions in certain dictionaries, determining word “assigned” in s. 61(3) having no other meaning than “appointed, designated or intended for”—IAD therefore deciding neither Act, s. 28, nor Regulations, s. 61 making any reference to assignment necessarily being carried out in Canada or resulting from competition open only to nationals of countries other than Canada, residing in other country—Whether interpretation by IAD of Act, s. 28(2)(a)(iii), Regulations, s. 61(3) reasonable—IAD failing to explain rejection of any particular meaning of word “assigned” despite definition contradicting meaning inferred by IAD—Section of Memorandum dealing with locally recruited professional employees not referring to term “assigned”—Competition respondent entered exclusively for local employees—Respondent therefore hired as local employee, where concept of assignment absent from definition—IAD unreasonable in applying modern dictionary meaning to concept of assignment without supporting finding by analysing evidence in record—Word “assignment” in context of permanent resident status interpreted in light of Act, Regulations implying connecting factor to employer located in Canada—Unreasonable to find that permanent residents holding full-time positions outside Canada with eligible Canadian company can accumulate days enabling them to comply with residency obligation—Application allowed.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jiang (IMM-4451-10, 2011 FC 349, Boivin J., Judgment Dated March 22, 2011, 22 pp.)