T-2923-78
In re Citizenship Act and in re Mohamad Chakib
Abdul-Hamid (Appellant)
Trial Division, Mahoney J.—London, December
14; Ottawa, December 18, 1978.
Citizenship — Demonstrable knowledge of Canada and of
rights and privileges of citizenship — Appellant claiming to
know answers to questions asked but unable to articulate in an
official language — Whether or not citizenship can be denied
because of inability to articulate answers re paragraph 5(1)(d)
in an official language — Citizenship Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c.
108, s. 5(1)(c),(d) — Citizenship Regulations, SORl77-127,
s. 15.
Appellant was found by the Citizenship Judge to have an
adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages,
pursuant to paragraph 5(1)(c), but was found not to meet the
requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d) concerning his having an
adequate knowledge of Canada, and of the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship. Appellant alleges that he knew the
answers to all the questions asked him in that respect, but as he
could only articulate them in Arabic, he needed an interpreter
which had not been provided. The issue is whether an applicant
must reply in an official language to the questions asked with
respect to paragraph 5(1)(d), or whether he might satisfy the
requirements of that section by replying through an interpreter.
Held, the appeal is allowed. The requirements of paragraphs
5(1)(c) and (d) are disjunctive. There is no author
ity for adding to the express requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d)
a further, implied, requirement that an applicant demonstrate
the adequacy of his knowledge of Canada and of the privileges
and responsibilities of citizenship by articulating it in one of the
official languages. It would be a significant additional require
ment, well beyond the standards set by section 14 of the
Regulations, to require that an applicant's knowledge of French
or English be such that he can deal adequately, in that lan
guage, with Canada's history, geography and political system.
As the law presently stands, an applicant is entitled, in demon
strating that he meets the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d) of
the Act, to use the language of his choice, which may not
necessarily be French or English.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Rachid Chams for appellant.
Edward J. McGrath, amicus curiae.
SOLICITORS:
Lamon & McGrath, London, amicus curiae.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
MAHONEY J.: The appellant was found by the
Citizenship Judge not to meet the requirement of
paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c.
108, but was found to meet the requirement of
paragraph 5(1)(c).' The other requirements of the
section are not material to the issue. In his notice
of appeal the appellant alleged that he knew the
answers to all the questions asked him as to his
knowledge of Canada and the rights and respon
sibilities of citizenship but could articulate them
only in Arabic and that he needed an interpreter
which had not been provided. An interpreter,
arranged for by the amicus curiae at the request of
the Court, was sworn in at the hearing of the
appeal.
The appellant is Lebanese and has been in
Canada for eight years. He is a labourer, married
with a family. His knowledge of English is, indeed,
adequate. He can discuss his work, his family and
his background in English with ease, albeit with an
accent. His ability to comprehend and express
himself in English as to matters within his personal
experience is not merely adequate, it is competent.
By regulation 2 , made under the author
ity of section 26 of the Act,' the criteria prescribed
for purposes of paragraph 5(1)(d) are:
15. The criteria for determining whether or not a person has
an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities
and privileges of citizenship are that he has a general under
standing of and can answer correctly simple oral questions
based on the information contained in self-instructional ma
terials approved by the Minister and presented to applicants for
the grant of citizenship respecting
5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person
who, not being a citizen, makes application therefor and
(c) has an adequate knowledge of one of the official lan
guages of Canada;
(d) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the respon
sibilities and privileges of citizenship; ...
s Citizenship Regulations, SOR/77-127.
26. The Governor in Council may make regulations
(d) providing for various criteria that may be applied to
determine whether or not a person
(i) has an adequate knowledge of one of the official
languages of Canada,
(ii) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the
responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, ...
(a) the right to vote in federal, provincial and municipal
elections and the right to run for elective office;
(b) enumerating and voting procedures relating to elections;
and
(c) one of the following topics to be chosen by the person
questioning the applicant, namely,
(i) the chief characteristics of Canadian social and cultur
al history,
(ii) the chief characteristics of Canadian political history,
(iii) the chief characteristics of Canadian physical and
political geography, or
(iv) the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship other
than
(A) those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), and
(B) where the person is a conscientious objector by
reason of his religion, his obligations to Canada during
time of war.
This Court, in dealing with an appeal, does not
have before it the self-instructional materials
referred to in section 15 of the Regulations. Nei
ther does this Court have any idea of the topic
chosen by the Citizenship Judge from among the
four options enumerated in paragraph 15(c). The
absence of that information from the record made
available to this Court is not helpful. The proceed
ing in this Court is a trial de novo. It seems clear
that in performing its function this Court is
required to apply the same standards as those
which ought to have been applied by the Citizen
ship Judge ill arriving at findings of fact. This
Court is, presumably, free to choose its own topic
from among the options permitted by paragraph
15(c); however, it is obviously impossible for this
Court to apply the same standards as the Citizen
ship Judge when this Court is ignorant of the
approved material upon which the appellant's
knowledge of the mandatory as well as optional
topics is supposed to be founded. Having said all
that in the hope that it may come to the Minister's
attention and that he may see both a problem and
solution, I return to the particular appeal.
The appellant was questioned by both the
amicus curiae and the Court on a variety of
subjects falling within the topics set forth in sec
tion 15. When questions were put in English with
out the benefit of interpretation into Arabic, the
appellant did not comprehend many of them
enough to essay an answer. When put to him in
Arabic, the appellant's answers in English were, by
and large, confused and confusing. When he
answered, through the interpreter, questions put
through the interpreter, the appellant's grasp of
the subject matter was clearly adequate. I am
entirely satisfied, both from his answers on the
prescribed topics and his general course of conduct
in Canada, that the appellant knows what is
expected of him as a Canadian citizen and demon
strates it in his daily life.
The requirements of paragraphs 5(1)(c) and (d)
of the Act are disjunctive. I see no au
thority for adding to the express requirements of
paragraph 5(1)(d) a further, implied, requirement
that an applicant demonstrate the adequacy of his
knowledge of Canada and of the privileges and
responsibilities of citizenship by articulating it in
one of the official languages. It would be a signifi
cant additional requirement, well beyond the
standards set by section 14 of the Regulations, 4 to
require that an applicant's knowledge of French or
English be such that he can deal adequately, in
that language, with Canada's history, geography
and political system. As the law presently stands,
an applicant is entitled, in demonstrating that he
meets the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d) of
the Act, to use the language of his choice, which
may not necessarily be French or English.
JUDGMENT
The appeal is allowed.
4 14. The criteria for determining whether or not a person
has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of
Canada are that, based on questions approved by the Minister,
(a) the vocabulary of the person in that language is appro
priate for the conduct of those of his non-professional activi
ties that reasonably can be expected to involve contact with
the general public in that language;
(b) the person comprehends, in that language, simple spoken
statements and questions in the past, present and future
tenses; and
(c) the oral expression of the person in that language accu
rately conveys simple information with respect to past,
present and future situations.
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.