|
Citizenship - Revocation. Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against a JR dismissal determining whether: "section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights".
Here the courts summarizes the central issue of the case, and it's conclusion:[1] On May 30, 2022, an authorized delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (the Minister) revoked Ms. Nan Tan’s Canadian citizenship pursuant to subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑29 (Citizenship Act), on the basis that it had been obtained by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances (the Minister’s Decision). Ms. Tan concedes that she entered into a marriage of convenience to obtain permanent residence status, which enabled her to become a Canadian citizen, but argued in her submissions to the Minister that her personal circumstances warranted special relief from revocation.
[2] In a decision dated April 18, 2024, the Federal Court dismissed Ms. Tan’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s Decision: Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 600 (per St-Louis J.) (the FC Decision). These Reasons for judgment address Ms. Tan’s appeal of the FC Decision.
[3] Ms. Tan’s main arguments contesting the revocation of her citizenship are (1) that the process set out in section 10 of the Citizenship Act for the revocation of Canadian citizenship violates paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44 (Bill of Rights) and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 (Charter); and (2) that, in any event, the Minister’s Decision was unreasonable. In this latter regard, Ms. Tan submits that the Minister’s delegate (Delegate) failed to reasonably balance the seriousness of the misrepresentation she now acknowledges against her mitigating personal circumstances.
[4] In dismissing Ms. Tan’s application for judicial review, the Federal Court certified the following question in accordance with paragraph 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act:Does section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights? ....
VI. Costs and conclusion
[147] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal without costs. I would answer the certified question as follows:Does section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights?
No. . Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against a JR dismissal determining whether: "section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights".
Here the court considers the interpretation of law respecting the revocation of citizenship [CA s.10]:B. Did the Federal Court correctly interpret section 10 of the Citizenship Act?
[50] The Federal Court’s interpretation of section 10 of the Citizenship Act centres on the interplay between subsections 10(3.1) and 10(4.1), and the division of decision-making authority between the Minister and the Federal Court. The lynchpin of Ms. Tan’s arguments, both before the Federal Court and on appeal, is that section 10 contemplates two mutually exclusive decision-making regimes in which an individual’s personal circumstances are only considered if the individual elects to have the Minister as the decision maker pursuant to paragraph 10(3.1)(b). If the individual does not so elect, Ms. Tan argues that the Federal Court determines whether citizenship will be revoked in a purely fact-finding process that does not allow for the consideration of whether the individual’s personal circumstances warrant special relief.
[51] Ms. Tan requests on appeal that the Court declare both sections 10 and 10.1 unconstitutional as contrary to paragraph 2(e) of the Bill of Rights and section 7 of the Charter. I find, however, that the Federal Court properly limited its constitutional analysis to section 10 for the reasons set out in the FC Decision. My analysis is similarly focussed on section 10, with references to section 10.1 as necessary.
[52] The Federal Court disagreed with Ms. Tan’s interpretation of the section 10 revocation process and concluded:[72] So, a simple reading of the relevant provision confirms that the assessment of whether personal circumstances militate against the revocation of citizenship is available even in the cases where the person has not elected for the Minister to make the revocation decision. If the Minister determines that the personal circumstances warrant special relief, the matter is concluded and the person retains their citizenship. Otherwise, on the person’s election, the matter of whether or not to revoke citizenship is decided by the Minister under subsection 10(1) or by the Court under section 10.1. Ms. Tan’s incorrect premise, repeated throughout her arguments, understandably weakens her constitutional challenge. [53] A brief overview of the revocation process established in section 10 of the Citizenship Act is necessary to understand the parties’ opposing interpretations of the section and the Federal Court’s analysis and conclusion.
[54] The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the Minister is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the person has obtained their citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances: subsection 10(1).
[55] Subsection 10(3) requires the Minister to provide the person with written notice before making any revocation decision. The written notice must (a) advise the person of their right to make written representations; (b) specify the manner in which the representations must be made; (c) set out the specific grounds and reasons, including reference to materials, on which the Minister relies; and (d) advise the person that their case will be referred to the Federal Court unless they request that revocation be decided by the Minister. The Court is the default decision maker.
[56] Subsection 10(3.1) provides that a person may:...
[...]
(a) make written representations with respect to the matters set out in the notice, including any considerations respecting his or her personal circumstances — such as the best interests of a child directly affected — that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case and whether the decision will render the person stateless; and
a) présenter des observations écrites sur ce dont il est question dans l’avis, notamment toute considération liée à sa situation personnelle — tel l’intérêt supérieur d’un enfant directement touché — justifiant, vu les autres circonstances de l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales ainsi que le fait que la décision la rendrait apatride, le cas échéant;
(b) request that the case be decided by the Minister.
b) demander que l’affaire soit tranchée par le ministre. [57] The Minister must consider any representations made by the person requesting special relief before making a decision and may hold a hearing if, based on certain prescribed factors, the Minister is of the opinion that a hearing is required: subsections 10(3.2) and 10(4) of the Citizenship Act and section 7.2 of the Regulations.
[58] Subsection 10(4.1) reads as follows:"(4.1) The Minister shall refer the case to the Court under subsection 10.1(1) unless"
"(4.1)"" Le ministre renvoie l’affaire à la Cour au titre du paragraphe 10.1(1) sauf si, selon le cas :"
"(a) the person has made written representations under paragraph (3.1)(a) and the Minister is satisfied"
"a)"" la personne a présenté des observations écrites en vertu de l’alinéa (3.1)a) et le ministre est convaincu que :"
"(i) on a balance of probabilities that the person has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, or"
"(i) ""soit, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, l’acquisition, la conservation ou la répudiation de la citoyenneté de la personne ou sa réintégration dans celle-ci n’est pas intervenue par fraude ou au moyen d’une fausse déclaration ou de la dissimulation intentionnelle de faits essentiels,"
"(ii) that considerations respecting the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case; or"
"(ii) ""soit des considérations liées à sa situation personnelle justifient, vu les autres circonstances de l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales;"
"(b) the person has made a request under paragraph (3.1)(b)."
"b)"" la personne a fait une demande en vertu de l’alinéa (3.1)b)." [59] If the person does not choose to have the revocation decision made by the Minister, the person’s citizenship may be revoked if the Minister commences an action in the Federal Court seeking a declaration that the person has obtained their citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances: subsection 10.1(1). A declaration made by the Court has the effect of revoking the person’s citizenship: subsection 10.1(3).
[60] As stated above, Ms. Tan submits that the Federal Court incorrectly interpreted sections 10 and 10.1 of the Citizenship Act by combining what are properly viewed as two distinct decision-making processes. She insists that, while either the Minister or the Federal Court may revoke a person’s citizenship, a decision by the Minister under subparagraph 10(4.1)(a)(ii), "“that considerations respecting the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case”", is only possible if the person elects to have the Minister determine revocation. Ms. Tan argues that the Minister cannot make a decision regarding special relief if the person chooses to proceed via the Federal Court, with the result that section 10 improperly limits the right of a person facing revocation to have their personal circumstances evaluated against the alleged misrepresentation or fraud.
[61] I disagree with Ms. Tan and find that the Federal Court correctly interpreted section 10 of the Citizenship Act.
[62] The modern principle of statutory interpretation requires the Court to consider the words of section 10 "“in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”": Vavilov at para. 117; Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50 at para. 23. The context for section 10, contained in Part II of the Citizenship Act (Loss of Citizenship), includes its legislative history and the amendments made to the section in 2018 following the Federal Court’s declaration of invalidity of the citizenship revocation provisions in the 2015 Citizenship Act in Hassouna. There, the Federal Court emphasized that a person facing revocation proceedings should be afforded "“an opportunity to have their special circumstances considered when such circumstances exist”": Hassouna at para. 195.
[63] Ms. Tan’s submissions focus on subsection 10(3.1) of the Citizenship Act. She submits that Parliament’s use of the word "“and”" between paragraphs 10(3.1)(a) and (b) means that a person may make submissions regarding the matters set out in the subsection 10(3) notice, including their personal circumstances (paragraph 10(3.1)(a)), only if they also request that their case be decided by the Minister (paragraph 10(3.1)(b)). If the person does not request a decision be made by the Minister, Ms. Tan argues that the Minister is not empowered to consider the person’s submissions regarding their personal circumstances (and nor is the Federal Court pursuant to section 10.1).
[64] Subsection 10(3.1) is permissive. A person may: (a) make representations to the Minister and (b) request that their case be decided by the Minister. Grammatically, "“may”" is properly read as applying to both (a) and (b). In addition, the word "“and”" can be interpreted conjunctively and disjunctively depending on the drafting context: Ruth Sullivan, The Construction of Statutes, 7th Ed., LexisNexis Canada Inc., June 2022, § 4.05 [19]. I find that the use of "“and”" to connect paragraphs 10(3.1)(a) and (b) in the subsection is not determinative and must be read more like "“and/or”" based on the text of the subsection itself and section 10 when read in its entirety, including subsection 10(4.1).
[65] Ms. Tan characterizes subsection 10(4.1) as merely a statement of the decisions the Minister is authorized to make if a person chooses the Minister as the decision maker. This characterization ignores the text of the subsection.
[66] Parliament uses mandatory language in subsection 10(4.1) to delineate the division of decision-making authority between the Minister and the Federal Court. The subsection requires the Minister to refer a person’s case to the Federal Court under subsection 10.1(1) unless:(a) the person has made written representations pursuant to paragraph 10(3.1)(a) and the Minister is satisfied of one of two possibilities:
(i) on a balance of probabilities, the person has not obtained their citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances; or
(ii) considerations respecting the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief; or
(b) the person has requested that the Minister decide their case. [67] It is clear that subsection 10(4.1) does not merely lay out a series of possible decisions by the Minister. Contrary to Ms. Tan’s assertion, the subsection requires the Minister to perform an assessment of personal circumstances prior to any referral of the case to the Federal Court (assuming the person made representations under paragraph 10(3.1)(a)). Reading the permissive language of subsection 10(3.1) and the mandatory language of subsections 10(3.2) and (4.1), I find that subsection 10(3.1) permits a person facing revocation to make representations requesting special relief from revocation and/or to choose the decision maker; subsection 10(4.1) then requires the Minister to make a series of decisions. If the person chooses the Minister as decision maker, the Minister determines whether the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief and whether the person obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances (the revocation decision). If, on the other hand, the person makes no election pursuant to paragraph 10(3.1)(b), the Minister determines whether they are satisfied that the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief or whether the person has not obtained their citizenship by false representation or fraud. Only if the Minister concludes that the answer to both questions is no, can the Minister refer the case to the Federal Court for a declaration of revocation.
[68] I conclude that the Minister must in every case consider any representations made by the affected person regarding their personal circumstances in accordance with subsection 10(3.2) to determine whether revocation is warranted and proportionate in "“all the circumstances of the case”". This interpretation of the two provisions does not create redundancy and is consistent with section 10, its interplay with section 10.1 and the context of the citizenship revocation scheme of the Citizenship Act. The Federal Court correctly arrived at the same conclusion and I find no error in its interpretation of section 10.
|
