5174
In re Canadian Citizenship Act and in re George
Cyrille Laprade (Appellant)
Citizenship Appeal Court, Walsh J.—Montreal,
May 14; Ottawa, June 4, 1974.
Citizenship—Domicile, intention and establishment—Resi-
dence, meaning—Physical presence requirements not met—
Application dismissed—Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. C-19, s. 10(1)(b), (g).
The appellant was born in the United States but came to
Canada in 1945 at the age of 14 to take classical studies.
Subsequently, he was admitted to Canada as a landed immi
grant in 1951 and studied for the priesthood in Montreal and
Washington and joined the Order in 1957. He studied fur
ther in Paris for a year and was sent to Bangladesh as a
missionary for seven years. He returned to Montreal in 1966
for six months on sabbatical leave and went back to Ban-
gladesh until June 1973 when he came back to Canada. He
applied for citizenship on June 29, 1973 and declared that
he always considered Canada as his home although his vows
required him to go wherever he was sent. The Citizenship
Court refused to recommend citizenship on the basis that he
failed to satisfy two basic requirements (1) under section
10(lxb) that he resided in Canada for at least twelve of the
eighteen months immediately preceding the date of his
application and (2) under section 10(1Xg) that he intends to
have his place of domicile permanently in Canada.
Held, the appeal is dismissed. Although the appellant
satisfied the Court that he effectively abandoned his Ameri-
can domicile when he obtained permanent resident status in
Canada and became a member of an Order whose headquar
ters are in the Province of Quebec and therefore acquired a
Quebec domicile, nevertheless he failed to satisfy the resi
dence requirement under section 10(1)(b) in that he had not
resided in Canada at least twelve of the eighteen months
immediately preceding the date of his application.
Blaha v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration [1971]
F.C. 521 and In re Goldston [1972] F.C. 559 followed.
COUNSEL:
G. Tremblay amicus curiae.
G. C. Laprade representing himself.
SOLICITORS:
Stikeman, Elliott & Co., Montreal, for
amicus curiae.
G. C. Laprade, Montreal, for himself.
WALSH J.—This is an appeal from a decision
of Judge Françoise Laporte dated October 9,
1973 dismissing the application of George
Cyrille Laprade for citizenship on the dual
ground that he had not complied with section
10(1)(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act and
that he does not intend to have his place of
domicile permanently in Canada.
The evidence given by the Reverend Father
Laprade at the hearing of his appeal disclosed
that he was born on October 23, 1931 in Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A., his father being American, and
that he is an American citizen. In 1945 at the
age of 14 he was sent to the College St-Laurent
in Montreal for his classical studies and he
continued to study in Canada until 1954,
although between 1945 and 1951 he returned to
his parents' home in the United States for his
holidays. On August 5, 1951 he was admitted to
Canada as a landed immigrant as appears from
the certificate he produced establishing this. At
the same time he became a Novice with the
Order of the Fathers of the Holy Cross (Pères
de la Sainte-Croix) in Montreal and after spend
ing two years studying philosophy in the Mont-
real area he was sent by the Provincial Superior
of that Order for four years to Washington to
study theology. This was between 1954 and
1958 and his studies were paid for by the Order.
During the first two years of his studies he took
summer courses in Washington but in 1957 and
1958 he returned to Montreal in the summer.
He was admitted to priesthood in the Order in
1957. In 1958 the Order sent him to Paris for
one year for studies in sociology and he was
then posted directly from there to Chittagong in
Bangladesh as a missionary. He was entitled to
a sabbatical leave after spending seven years
there and returned to Montreal from April to
October 1966. From then until June 1973 he
was sent back to Bangladesh.
On his return to Canada he applied for citi
zenship on June 29, 1973. He stated that he has
always considered Montreal as his home ever
since he came to Canada in 1951 as a landed
immigrant and that he would like to stay in
Montreal but admits that as he is in a missionary
Order his vows require him to go wherever he is
sent. The Order to which he belongs does have
some missions in Montreal, including Saint
Joseph's Oratory, but he has no means of know
ing where he will be posted next. At present he
is studying pastoral theology in Montreal. He
draws no salary but is merely provided with
clothing and living expenses so there is no ques
tion of tax deduction. When he goes to Ban-
gladesh he leaves his black vestments with the
headquarters of the Order in Montreal since he
wears white in Bangladesh and on his return to
Montreal he puts on his black vestments again
which are kept for him. Any personal books he
has he takes with him on his missionary assign
ment. Since except for this he has no personal
belongings and lives at the headquarters of the
Order when in Montreal, it might be said that he
has no personal residence here although he con
siders that he is a Montreal resident even during
the lengthy periods when he is sent elsewhere.
The refusal of the Citizenship Court to
recommend his application for citizenship is
based on his alleged failure to satisfy the two
requirements of section 10(1)(b) that "he has
resided in Canada for at least twelve of the
eighteen months immediately preceding the date
of his application" and 10(1)(g) that "he intends
to have his place of domicile permanently in
Canada".
"Residence" and "domicile" are two separate
concepts in law and are not synonymous, and
especially since both words are used in the
Canadian Citizenship Act it is essential that
each be given its full meaning. "Place of domic
ile" is defined in the Act as follows:
2. In this Act
"place of domicile" means the place in which a person has
his home or in which he resides or to which he returns as
his place of permanent abode and does not mean a place
in which he stays for a mere special or temporary
purpose;
"Residence" is not defined. In international law
a person's domicile of origin remains with him
wherever he may reside unless and until he has
effected a change of domicile. In order to effect
a change of domicile there must be an actual
move to the place where the new domicile is
established/ accompanied by indications of
intent to the effect that this move is of a perma
nent nature and that the party desires to make
this country, province or state his permanent
home. This "animus manendi" is not deter
mined solely by the declarations of the person
in question but also by his conduct which tends
to confirm or negate his declaration. When the
animus manendi is clear it is not necessary that
there be a lengthy residence at the new place of
domicile in order to effect a change of domicile,
and this is all the more true when it is apparent
by the person's declarations and conduct that he
has effectively abandoned his former domicile,
since at any given time a person must have
some domicile but can only legally acquire a
new one when the former domicile has been
abandoned.
Applying these principles to the facts of the
present case I am satisfied that Father Laprade
effectively abandoned his American domicile
when he not only applied for and obtained per
manent resident status in Canada but also was
admitted as a Novice to study for the priesthood
in an Order whose headquarters, in so far as he
is concerned, are in the Province of Quebec,
and that at this time. he validly acquired a
Canadian, or more precisely, a Quebec domicile.
He had already at that time spent six years as a
boarder in a classical college in Quebec, he was
well aware that the Order he was joining would
send him almost anywhere in the world as a
missionary, only to return to the headquarters
of the Order in Quebec from time to time, and
while it is true that he pursued university stud
ies in the United States in 1954 to 1958 this was
because he was sent there by his Order and not
as a matter of choice, so there is nothing what
soever to indicate that he ever has had, since
1951, any intention of returning to his country
of origin in the United States to reside. Having
reached the conclusion that he is domiciled in
Canada, I do not agree with the exclusion based
on section 10(1)(g) of the Act. Because of the
nature of his employment he is less free than
others to express any intent as to where he will
reside in future, and if it is concluded that he is
now domiciled in Canada then it would take a
clear expression of intent to change this in order
for this domicile to be abandoned and a new
domicile established elsewhere. Even if he
could do so, it is clear that this would not be his
intent. He would like to not only be domiciled
but also to reside in the Province of Quebec
were this possible, and while he is prepared, in
accordance with his vows, to go wherever he is
sent, this, in itself, is not sufficient to negate
this intent. In so far as the rejection of his
application is based on section 10(1)(g) of the
Act, I would therefore maintain his appeal.
The rejection based on section 10(1)(b), how
ever, raises an entirely different question since
it deals with "residence" and not with "domi-
cile". To give the interpretation which appellant
seeks to the word "resided" would be to make it
synonymous with "domicile" which it clearly is
not and there is jurisprudence of this Court to
that effect. I refer to the judgment of Pratte J. in
the case of Blaha v. Minister of Citizenship &
Immigration' where he states:
The Canadian Citizenship Act does not define the terms
"reside" or `residence". It may be noted, however, that it
defines the expression "place of domicile" in the following
manner:
2. "place of domicile" means the place in which a
person has his home or in which he resides or to which he
returns as his place of permanent abode and does not
mean a place in which he stays for a mere special or
temporary purpose;
As the Act does not define the words `reside" and "resi-
dence", we must arrive at their meaning by reference to the
ordinary connotation, with the single obvious qualification
that they cannot be given a meaning which is identical to
that given by Parliament to the expression `place of
domicile".
In my opinion a person is resident in Canada within the
meaning of the Canadian Citizenship Act only if he is
physically present (at least usually) on Canadian territory. I
feel that this interpretation is in keeping with the spirit of
the Act, which seems to require of the foreigner wishing to
acquire Canadian citizenship, not only that he possess cer-
' [1971] F.C. 521 at 524-25
tain civic and moral qualifications, and intends to reside in
Canada on a permanent basis, but also that he has actually
lived in Canada for an appreciable time. Parliament wishes
by this means to ensure that Canadian citizenship is granted
only to persons who have shown they are capable of becom
ing a part of our society.
Further, this interpretation is confirmed by the compari
son which can be made between the English and French
versions of subparagraph (1)(c)(i) of section 10. The expres
sion "each full year of residence in Canada", which appears
in the English text of this subparagraph, has been translated
in the French text by the words "chaque année entière
passée au Canada". [Italics mine.]
If this limited meaning is to be given to the word "reside",
as I think it has to be, the Court was clearly right in holding
that appellant did not reside in Canada for five of the eight
years or for twelve of the eighteen months immediately
preceding the date of his application.
It is true that in the present case, as in the
Blaha case the requirement of section
10(1)(c)(i) of residence in Canada for at least
five of the eight years immediately preceding
the application is not applicable since it is
excluded by the provisions of section 10(8)(b)
as I have already concluded that Father
Laprade had acquired Canadian domicile before
July 7, 1967. This does not overcome the dif
ficulty resulting from section 10(1)(b) since
appellant had clearly not "resided" in Canada
for at least twelve of the eighteen months
immediately preceding the date of his
application.
The case of Blaha was followed by Collier J.
in In re Goldstone.
It is indeed regrettable that Father Laprade
filed his application for citizenship on June 29,
1973 immediately after his return to Canada
from Bangladesh, since if he had waited until
June 1974 he would have satisfied the require
ment of the said section whereas now, by virtue
of section 14 of the Act, he will have to wait for
two years from the date of rejection of his
application before making another application
and at that date he will again have had to reside
in Canada for twelve of the eighteen months
immediately preceding it in order to comply
with the requirements of the Act. It is particu
larly regrettable in that he would make a most
desirable citizen and it is unfortunate that for
technical reasons his appeal must be rejected,
2 [1972] F.C. 559
but the Court cannot change the law. I would
like to express my appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Mr. Gérald Tremblay,
acting as amicus curiae.
For the above reasons the appeal is
dismissed.
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.