C.A.C. 61/75
In re the Canadian Citizenship Act and in re an
appeal from a decision of the Canadian Citizen
ship Court and in re Abul Fazal Muhammad
Citizenship Appeal Court, Heald J.—Ottawa,
December 17, 1975.
Citizenship and immigration—Appeal—Residence in Cana-
da—Whether absences from Canada affecting residence in
Canada.
In holding that absences from Canada affected appellant's
residence status, the Citizenship Judge interpreted the Blaha
case to require actual physical presence in Canada at all times,
omitting the important qualification of the words "at least
usually." Because appellant was briefly absent from Canada on
several instances, he cannot be said to have given up his
Canadian residence. To reside in Canada for a period of years
does not mean that every minute of that period must be spent in
Canada.
Blaha v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [1971]
F.C. 521; In re Canadian Citizenship Act and in re
Laprade [1974] 1 F.C. 196; In re Goldston [1972] F.C.
559, applied.
APPEAL from Canadian Citizenship Court.
COUNSEL:
D. W. Scott for appellant.
P. D. Beseau, amicus curiae.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
HEALD J.: I have read the Blaha case and I
have also read the other cases; and I am prepared
to give judgment. I will read it orally.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Canadi-
an Citizenship Court dated August 29th, 1975,
wherein that Court declined to recommend to the
Secretary of State that the appellant be granted a
certificate of Canadian citizenship.
The appellant was lawfully admitted to Canada
for permanent residence on May 26th, 1972. Pre
vious thereto, from September 27th, 1967, he was
in Canada as a non-immigrant. The appellant is a
research biologist.
The appellant was absent from Canada while a
non-immigrant on the following dates:
1. July 13th, 1968—one day; same day return.
2. August 31st, 1968—one day; same day
return.
3. August 24th to September 6th, 1969—thir-
teen days, expenses paid by C.I.D.A. to attend
the International Botanical Congress in Seattle,
Washington.
4. June 27th to June 30th, 1971—three days,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to attend a Forest
Products Research Society Meeting.
5. August 26th to September 1st, 1970—seven
day camping trip in the U.S.A.
6. August 25th, 1971—one day; same day
return.
The appellant participated in the two scientific
congresses and delivered a scientific paper at one
of them.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the
above absences from Canada by the appellant
affect his "residence in Canada" during that
period.
The learned Citizenship Judge held that said
absences did affect his residence status and reject
ed the appellant's application. The learned Judge
based his decision on a statement by Mr. Justice
Pratte of this Court, in the case of Blaha v.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [19711
F.C. 521, and interpreted said statement to require
actual physical presence in Canada at all times.
In quoting from the judgment of Pratte J. at
page 524, the learned Citizenship Judge omitted
what I consider to be an important qualification
placed in parenthesis by Mr. Justice Pratte. The
statement of Mr. Justice Pratte reads as follows:
In my opinion, a person is resident in Canada, within the
meaning of the Canadian Citizenship Act, only if he is physi
cally present (at least usually) .. .
and I underline the word "usually"
... on Canadian territory.
The learned Citizenship Judge omitted in quot
ing Mr. Justice Pratte the words: "at least
usually".
It is my view that said qualification covers a
factual situation, like the present one. Because the
appellant went to the United States for dinner or
to shop or to mail a letter, as Mr. Scott has
pointed out, or on a short camping trip or to attend
a convention, surely he cannot be said to have
given up his Canadian residence. To reside in
Canada for a period of years does not mean that
every minute of that period must be spent in
Canada.
The factual situation here present is quite differ
ent from that of Blaha, referred to above, where
the applicant spent over four years as a student in
the United States, returning to Canada only
during the summer months of each year.
The facts here also are quite different from
those in the Laprade case, [1974] 1 F.C. 196,
where the applicant had been in Bangladesh for
some seven years prior to his application for citi
zenship; and from those in the Goldston case,
[1972] F.C. 559, where the applicant was only
physically in Canada for two to three months of
the preceding eighteen month period.
I agree with the definition of residence in
Canada given by Mr. Justice Pratte in the Blaha
case and, find on the facts in the case at bar, the
appellant has clearly established during the period
in question that he has been usually physically
present on Canadian territory.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed,
and the decision of the Canadian Citizenship
Judge is reversed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.