Koo, Re (1992), 59 F.T.R. 27 (TD)
MLB headnote and full text
In The Matter Of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29;
And In The Matter Of an Appeal from the Decision of a Citizenship Judge;
And In The Matter Of Chee Chow David Koo (appellant)
(T-20-92)
Indexed As: Koo, Re
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Reed, J.
December 3, 1992.
Summary:
Koo was denied citizenship on the ground that he failed to meet the residency requirements of s. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Koo appealed.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal.
Aliens – Topic 2525
Naturalization – Qualifications – Residence – Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act required three years’ accumulated residence in Canada in the four years preceding the citizenship application – Koo was physically present in Canada for 232 days of the 1095 days required – Koo owned business interests in Hong Kong and spent most of his time there – His wife remained in Canada and acquired citizenship – Koo and his wife purchased a home in Vancouver – Other relatives lived in Canada – Other standard connections existed (e.g., bank accounts, driver’s licence, credit cards, etc.) – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, affirmed that Koo failed to meet the residency requirements – The court stated that Koo’s physical presence in Canada was consistent with visits to the country as opposed to an intention to return to the country where he regularly, normally and customarily lives.
Aliens – Topic 2525
Naturalization – Qualifications – Residence – Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act required three years’ accumulated residence in Canada in the four years preceding the citizenship application – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that “to allow physical absence to be treated as residence within the country for the purposes of obtaining citizenship, the quality of the person’s connection with this country must demonstrate a primacy or priority of residence in Canada (a more substantial connection with Canada than with any other place)” – See paragraph 12.
Cases Noticed:
Papadogiorgakis, Re, [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 2].
Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] S.C.R. 209, refd to. [para. 3].
Leung, Re (1991), 42 F.T.R. 149 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].
Lee, Re (1988), 24 F.T.R. 188 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].
Chien, Re (1992), 51 F.T.R. 317 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].
Law, Re (1992), 56 F.T.R. 10 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].
Kleifges, Re (1978), 84 D.L.R.(3d) 183 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].
Statutes Noticed:
Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, sect. 5(1)(c) [para. 1].
Counsel:
G. Letcher and K. Boyle, for the appellant;
J.B. Kowarsky, amicus curiae.
Solicitors of Record:
Edwards, Kenny & Bray, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;
J.B. Kowarsky, Vancouver, B.C., amicus curiae.
This appeal was heard on September 11, 1992, at Vancouver, B.C., before Reed, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 3, 1992.
