In re Mrs. Sook Ying Lum (Appellant)
Citizenship Appeal Court, Pratte J.—Toronto,
January 11; Ottawa, January 12, 1972.
Citizenship—Simultaneous applications by husband and
wife—Husband but not wife satisfied residence require-
ments—Husband's application granted—Whether wife enti
tled to citizenship—Canadian Citizenship Act, s. 10(1)(c)
(i) and (iii).
On January 11, 1971, Mr. Lum and his wife applied for
Canadian citizenship. The husband had resided in Canada
for more than five of the preceding eight years as of the
date of his application, and was accordingly granted Canadi-
an citizenship by the Citizenship Court. The application of
the wife was, however, rejected by that Court on the ground
that when she made her application she was not the wife of
a Canadian citizen and had not resided in Canada for at
least five of the preceding eight years, as required by
subparagraph 10(1)(c)(i) of the Canadian Citizenship Act.
The wife appealed on the ground that as her husband had
become a Canadian citizen she was relieved by subpara-
graph 10(1)(c)(iii) of the residency requirements imposed by
subparagraph 10(1)(c)(i).
Held, dismissing her appeal, on the evidence before the
Court of first instance and the additional evidence before
this Court on appeal, the Court of first instance was right in
holding that she did not meet the requirements of s. 10
when she made her application.
APPEAL from Citizenship Court.
Ian F. H. Rogers (amicus curiae.)
PRATTE J.—This is an appeal pursuant to the
Canadian Citizenship Act from a decision,
dated June 4, 1971, that the appellant, Mrs.
Sook Ying Lum, was not a fit and proper
person to be granted a certificate of citizenship
since, not being the wife of a Canadian citizen,
she had not resided in Canada for at least five
of the eight years immediately preceding the
date of her application for such a certificate.
The appellant, who was born in China, got
married with Mr. Kee Chun Lum in 1966. She
was admitted to Canada for permanent resi
dence on September 17, 1967, and, since then,
has always resided with her husband in Hunts-
ville, Ontario. On January 11, 1971, both the
appellant and her husband applied for a certifi
cate of Canadian citizenship.
Dealing with the application of the appellant's
husband, the court of first instance reached the
conclusion that he possessed the required
qualifications to be granted a certificate of
Canadian citizenship. Indeed, Mr. Lum, apart
from meeting the other requirements of section
10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, had
resided in Canada for more than five of the
eight years preceding the date of his applica
tion; he had been lawfully admitted to Canada
on May 7, 1964, and, since then, had always
resided in Huntsville, Ontario. A certificate of
Canadian citizenship was therefore granted to
the appellant's husband who became a Canadi-
an citizen upon his taking the oath of allegiance
on December 10, 1971.
Dealing with the appellant's application, the
court of first instance, as I already said, reached
the conclusion that she was not a fit and proper
person to be granted a certificate of citizenship.
This conclusion was based on the finding that,
at that time, the appellant was not the wife of a
Canadian citizen and had not, as required by
subparagraph 10(1)(c)(î) of the Act, resided in
Canada for at least five of the eight years
immediately preceding the date of her applica
tion. It is the correctness of this decision which
is now at issue.
It is the contention of the appellant, whose
views were put forward by the amicus curiae
appointed by the Deputy Attorney General of
Canada, that the decision appealed from should
be reversed for the reason that the appellant's
husband having become a Canadian citizen on
December 10, 1971, the appellant is now a fit
and proper person to be granted a certificate of
citizenship since, under subparagraph
10(1)(c)(iii), the foreigner who is the wife of a
Canadian citizen does not have to meet the
requirements as to residence of subparagraph
10(1)(c)(i).
With much regret, I must say that this conten
tion appears to me to be ill-founded. Sitting in
appeal under section 31 of the Act, I am not
called upon to determine whether or not the
appellant, at the present time, meets the
requirements of section 10 of the Act; I have
only to say whether, in the light of the evidence
brought before the court of first instance and of
the additional evidence adduced before this
Court, the court of first instance was right in
finding that the applicant, at the time she made
her application, on January 11, 1971, was not a
fit and proper person to be granted Canadian
citizenship. As it is not disputed that the appel
lant, when she made her application, did not
meet the requirements of section 10(1) of the
Act, it is clear that the finding of the court of
first instance in this respect cannot be
disturbed.
I have, therefore, no alternative but to dis
miss this appeal.
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.