Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ) v. Chuang
T-6-99
Reed J.
14/9/99
5 pp.
Residency requirements-Need for clarification-Appeal from Citizenship Judge's decision granting respondent citizenship after finding respondent had fulfilled requirements of Citizenship Act, s. 5(1)(c)-For much of time in question, respondent physically absent from Canada-Respondent came to Canada as landed immigrant in 1994 and left two weeks later to return to United States to continue studies and studied there three years-Court divided on issue-Some judges say physical presence required while others hold different view-Perhaps Parliament did mean that physical presence was absolute essential for each of 1095 days required by Act, s. 5(1)(c), but perhaps not-No clarification from Parliament-Nor from Court of Appeal as no appeal from Trial Division decisions to Court of Appeal in citizenship cases-In Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 F.C. D-63 (T.D.), Lutfy J. held citizenship judges may adopt either strict or flexible interpretation of "residence" and not be in error, provided relevant principles properly applied to facts of case-Herein, even adopting test most favouring individual applicant, facts of situation do not support conclusion she ever established herself in Canada-She came to Canada on most school holidays, but also spent considerable amount of time in Taiwan-In similar cases, Court has held application for citizenship simply premature-Appeal allowed-Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29, s. 5(1)(c).