ARCHIVED – Citizenship Commission – Office of the Senior Citizenship Judge

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

2007–2008 Annual Report


Table of Content


The Citizenship Commission

Letter to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration
and Multiculturalism
The Honourable, Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.

The Honourable Jason Kenney
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
365 Laurier Avenue West
21st Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1

Dear Minister Kenney:

I am pleased to submit to you the Annual Report of the Citizenship Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2008.

This Annual Report provides a summary of the context in which the Commission operated in 2007–2008, the initiatives that were undertaken, and the objectives we have established for 2008–2009.

Having been appointed as Senior Citizenship Judge on October 6, 2008, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work undertaken in the 2007–2008 fiscal year by my predecessor Michel C. Simard in his role as Senior Citizenship Judge from August 2003 to August 2008.

Yours sincerely,

George Springate
Senior Citizenship Judge

II. Message from the Senior Citizenship Judge

Michel SimardI am pleased to confirm that the Citizenship Commission has made progress and innovations in several areas over the 2007–2008 fiscal year.

We are continuing to aim at consistency in decision making, a process that has been ongoing for a number of years.

I am pleased to present the 2007–2008 Annual Report of the Citizenship Commission. As outgoing Senior Citizenship Judge, this report is my last opportunity to provide a comprehensive review of the Commission’s performance and accomplishments.

The past year has been marked by a huge increase in citizenship visibility mainly due to the numerous activities organized throughout 2007 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Canadian citizenship. During this period, my priority was to consolidate the work undertaken in previous years and to hold firmly to a vision of the Commission where excellence, consistency, efficiency, accountability and independence of decision-making is the yardstick by which all our activities and initiatives are measured. Keeping with this vision, despite many external challenges and an ever-changing environment, we were able to remain focused on the Commission’s core business, the resolution of citizenship matters fairly, efficiently and quickly, in accordance with the law and as informally as the circumstances permit.

Whatever accomplishments and advancements we have made during the year under review, all are due mainly to the professional skills, dedication and teamwork of each of my Citizenship Judge colleagues as well as CIC and Commission staff.

I would like to publicly express my sincere appreciation and praise for what they have contributed, individually and collectively, to every area and stage of our decision-making, ceremonial, promotional and administrative activities.

Michel C. Simard

III. Complement of Citizenship Judges

The Senior Citizenship Judge leads a team of Citizenship Judges (Judges) and office staff responsible for the effective management of the Citizenship Commission (Commission).

In April 2007 there were 28 Judges (19 full-time; 9 part-time) with 9 vacancies. By March 2008, the numbers had increased to 33 Judges (20 full-time; 13 part-time and 9 vacancies). Ottawa, Winnipeg and Saskatoon. Two Judges left the Commission when their terms ended. Listed below are the Judges who served on the Commission during the 2007–2008 fiscal year.

Halifax, (Atlantic Region)
Judge Linda Carvery

Montréal, Québec
Judge Gordana Caricevic-Rakovich
Judge Barbara Seal
Judge George Springate

Ottawa, Ontario
Judge Suzanne Pinel
Judge Brian Coburn
Judge Thanh Hai Ngo

Mississauga, Ontario
Judge Roberto Roberti*
Judge M. Saleem Akhtar
Judge Renata Brum Bozzi
Judge Kris Mohan
Judge Mina Yung-Fung

Scarborough, Ontario
Judge Normand A. Allaire
Judge Philip M. Gaynor
Judge John K.S. Koulouras
Judge Peter Vecharelli*

Toronto (St. Clair) Ontario
Judge Sarkis Assadourian
Judge Agnes U. Potts
Judge Patricia Phenix
Judge Raminder Gill

Etobicoke, Ontario
Judge Ann L. Northcote

London, Ontario
Judge Russell Monteith

Hamilton, Ontario
Judge Robert M. Morrow

Windsor, Ontario
Judge B. Gail Degroot

Winnipeg, Manitoba
Judge Arthur K. Miki
Judge Harold Gilleshammer

Calgary, Alberta
Judge Raymond Charles Lee

Edmonton, Alberta
Judge Sonia Bitar

Vancouver, British Columbia
Judge William Day
Judge Sandra Wilking
Judge Brenda Brown
Judge Shinder P.S. Purewal
Judge Verya Radyo*

Victoria, British Columbia
Judge George Gibault

* Left the Commission before March 31, 2008

IV. Overview

Mandate

The Citizenship Commission (Commission) is an administrative tribunal within Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The Commission consists of all Citizenship Judges (Judges) working across Canada. Its mandate derives from the responsibilities conferred upon those Judges by the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations. Judges review approximately 180,000 citizenship applications each year.

Citizenship Judges are responsible for the following:

  • determining whether citizenship applicants meet the requirements of the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations;
  • administering the oath of citizenship and highlighting the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship;
  • working to maintain the integrity of the citizenship process; and
  • promoting citizenship by working with school boards, service clubs, multicultural groups and other community organizations.

The Act specifies four types of citizenship applications: grant of citizenship S. 5(1); retention S. 8, renunciation S. 9(1); and resumption S. 11(1). The majority of applications are decided by Judges on the basis of a file review. However, when a Judge determines that more information is required to make a decision, the applicant is invited to attend a hearing before that Judge.

Senior Citizenship Judge

The Commission is headed by the Senior Citizenship Judge. Reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Senior Judge is responsible for ensuring that Judges perform their statutory and administrative duties under the Citizenship Act and is the liaison between Judges, the Minister and CIC representatives on citizenship issues. The Senior Judge also acts as a spokesperson for the Commission, and manages the administrative and professional services that the Commission provides to Judges.

In addition to performing the regular duties of a Judge, the Senior Judge is assigned the following additional duties by the Minister pursuant to Section 26 (2) of the Citizenship Act:

  • Coordinate the activities of the Judges in the exercise of their quasi-judicial decision making functions.
  • Collaborate with the Minister and departmental officials in order to facilitate the administration of the Citizenship Act with regard to the quasi-judicial and ceremonial functions performed by Judges and in matters relating to the promotion of citizenship.
  • Provide training for newly appointed Judges and ongoing professional development for all Judges.
  • Foster collegiality and consistency among Judges by providing guidance, leading discussion, encouraging dialogue, preparing guidelines and information bulletins.
  • Respond to and manage complaints concerning the professional conduct of Judges.
  • Consult with responsible government authorities on all matters relating to conflict of interest and taking necessary measures to ensure compliance with conflict of interest rules applicable to Judges.
  • Manage staff in the Senior Judge’s Office, including developing the Commission’s business plan and administering the salary and operational budget.

Citizenship Judges

Appointment Process

Judges are appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC) on the recommendation of the Minister. Appointments may be made on a full-time or part-time basis usually for a three year term. Their status as GIC appointees affords Judges the independence they need to exercise their decision‑making function free from outside influence.

Decision Making Authority

Judges are, first and foremost, quasi‑judicial decision makers. Only Judges have the authority to decide citizenship applications. The Act does not allow CIC, or even the Minister, to exercise this power. While the Act gives Judges the power to decide all four types of citizenship applications, for administrative efficiency, applications to retain and renounce citizenship are decided by the Senior Judge.

Accountability

Although Judges are not accountable to the Senior Judge, CIC or even the Minister for the decisions they render, this does not mean that they have no accountability. Their decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada by the applicant or by the Minister. Federal Court decisions help clarify the issues that Judges consider and also provide them with direction in interpreting the law.

Knowledge and Training

To perform their quasi‑judicial duties, Judges must understand the principles of administrative law and natural justice, the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations, relevant case law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code.

As part of their orientation training, newly appointed Judges are given the opportunity to job shadow with an experienced Judge. The new appointee observes the Judge in ceremonies and with the consent of the applicant sits in on language, knowledge and residency hearings. Job shadowing is followed with a comprehensive five day training program that provides new Judges with the knowledge and skills they require to perform their duties. After this program, Judges participate in on-going training activities to further develop their skills and are evaluated through the mentorship program administered by the Senior Judge’s Office.

Roles and Responsibilities

While Judges spend approximately 90% of their time performing their decision‑making role, the public is much more aware of their ceremonial and ambassadorial roles.

Judges preside over citizenship ceremonies, during which they have the honour and privilege of welcoming new citizens into the Canadian family. It is at these ceremonies that Judges administer the Oath of Citizenship and speak to new citizens about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. More importantly, it is here and at promotional events in the community that Judges pass on their pride, enthusiasm and respect for the institution of Canadian citizenship.

The stature of the position stems in part from the fact that the three functions of the role are mutually reinforcing. The authority of the quasi‑judicial function, the prominence of the ceremonial function and the commitment to Canada demonstrated in the promotion activities enhance one another and strengthen the office as a result.

Commission Standing Committees

The Commission operates two standing committees, the Legislation and Operations Standing Committee and the Standing Committee on Citizenship Promotion. These committees were established to address both the operational and promotional requirements of the Commission.

Standing Committee on Legislation and Operations

As its name indicates the Committee deals with the legislative and operational challenges of the Commission, to ensure that best practices contribute to the overall integrity and efficiency of the citizenship process. The purpose of this Committee is to address legislative and operational challenges of the Commission and to ensure the sharing of best practices that contribute to the overall integrity and efficiency of the citizenship process.

These main business activities (within the context of the Commission and its relationship with citizenship stakeholders) are:

  • increasing integrity, consistency, coherence and efficiency in the delivery of citizenship services to clients across the country by identifying and implementing best practices;
  • increasing an understanding of the role and responsibilities of all people responsible for delivering the citizenship program;
  • finding workable solutions to issues raised with consideration of program integrity, operational needs and service delivery to clients;
  • making recommendations of mutual interest at the appropriate level when necessary.

The Legislation and Operations Committee provided comments on key initiatives of the Department. Committee Members reviewed an analysis comparing the British and Canadian citizenship models offering comments to the Department on the feasibility of considering certain elements of the British system for the Canadian system of the future. The Committee presented the Departmental Working Group, the following recommendations for consideration:

  • Increase the inventory of validated knowledge questions and Canada wide support for French and English instructors in both government and non-government funded environments.
  • Review language and knowledge benchmarks for the present model of assessment.
  • Radically increased inventory of validated knowledge questions for the citizenship tests with questions rotated frequently.
  • Provide alternate access to information and advice regarding citizenship applications through Regional Offices and Service Canada offices, including internet and telephone access. Having a “human face” service should include a preliminary check of applications for completeness prior to forwarding the applications for processing.

Committee Members requested that they be afforded the opportunity to participate on any Working Group being formed to further explore the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and value of citizenship education and testing programs. We believe that their insight would be valuable in generating meaningful discussion on the gaps in current education and testing materials and recommendations for new products.

Standing Committee on Citizenship Promotion

The purpose of this Committee is to address the promotional challenges of the Commission in the areas of communications, marketing and outreach initiatives that advance the importance of citizenship and its inherent responsibilities to stakeholders.

These activities include:

  • supporting the development of promotional opportunities that align with the national promotional objectives;
  • acting as a facilitator in organizing the steps necessary to plan and conduct promotional activities in various regions across Canada;
  • exploring opportunities to collaborate with portfolio partners in joint ventures where Judges can promote active citizenship;
  • coordinating the development of various tools required to conduct outreach activities.

Committee Members and departmental representatives collaborated on various community and national initiatives related to celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Canadian citizenship.

This year’s Citizenship Week showcased many significant community based ceremonies such as a NHQ hosted citizenship ceremony at the University of Ottawa, Citizenship Ceremony at the house of the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba and citizenship ceremonies in schools, colleges and community organizations in major urban and rural centres across Canada.

A particular highlight was the October 19, 2007 celebrating Citizenship Week and the 60th Anniversary of citizenship held at CBC headquarters in downtown Toronto. The Minister hosted the ceremony with six Judges from the Greater Toronto Area in attendance. Approximately 300 new Canadians from 93 countries were sworn in at this ceremony with RCMP officers, a town crier and bag pipe music adding extra pomp and circumstance to the ceremony. The Minister spent over two hours after the ceremony greeting new Canadians, sharing their experiences and participating in photographs.

CBC played a very active part in promoting the citizenship message. The GTA radio and TV stations provided daily coverage of the life and experiences of recent Canadians. Several Judges were invited to share their personal experiences and perspective with respect to citizenship.

Relationship with CIC

CIC is the Commission’s primary partner. In addition to managing the process in which Judges perform their duties, the Department provides the Commission with administrative, financial and human resources services as part of the citizenship judge program. CIC is a party to the decision‑making process by virtue of the right of appeal and the authority to grant citizenship, which it exercises on behalf of the Minister. While the Commission and CIC work closely at both the local and the national levels, they maintain an arms‑length relationship on decision‑making matters in order to ensure the independence of Judges.

V. Operating Context

The Environment

The 2007–2008 fiscal year can be described as a year in which the Commission increased its profile within CIC as a valuable source of information and expert advice on the citizenship program. We hope that our Judges will continue to be invited to provide their input and contribute to the Department’s initiatives to articulate what a vision of citizenship means and the policies and tools required to achieve our goals.

CIC identified client service modernization as one of its key strategic business priorities. The new direction will have an impact on the operations of the Commission. We expect that Judges will have an opportunity to provide their suggestions for improvements to the citizenship process and to comment on changes proposed by CIC.

In April 2007, the complement of Judges was 28 (19 full-time; 9 part-time) with 9 vacancies. By March 1st, 2008 our complement had increased to 33 Judges (20 full-time; 13 part-time) and 9 vacancies. The increase in both the target and actual complement of Judges resulted from 7 new appointments, and new positions added in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Saskatoon.

The Commission’s priority remains to ensure that the complement of Judges is sufficient to meet the operational requirements in each local office and to ensure that well-reasoned decisions are rendered in a timely fashion and in accordance with the law. This is essential to deal fairly and equitably with citizenship applicants wherever they may be. Appointments and reappointments must be prompt in order for the citizenship process to function optimally. The Commission continues to urge the Government to address this important operational requirement. Delays in appointments impact the productivity of local offices, since Judges have sole authority to approve applications.

Achievements

Association of Netherlands Municipalities

In June 2007, the Senior Judge was invited to attend the conference of the Association of Netherlands Municipalities held at Societeit Witte in The Hague. The conference focussed on discussion of the Dutch experience with naturalisation citizenship ceremonies. As a key-note speaker, the Senior Judge delivered a speech on citizenship and its role in our changing society.

Prior to the conference, the Senior Judge visited a multi-cultural neighbourhood in the city of Amsterdam and attended a naturalisation ceremony in which 100 people were welcomed as new Dutch citizens. At the request of the conference organizers, the Senior Judge submitted a report on his observations of the Dutch ceremony process and possible means of streamlining the citizenship services to address problems facing Dutch officials. Copies of the report are available from the Office of the Senior Judge.

The Commission welcomed the opportunity to attend such an important conference where participants were able to exchange their questions, experiences and discuss areas of mutual concern.

Mentorship Program

The mentorship program offers newly appointed Judges the opportunity to receive in situ verbal and written feedback about the efficacy of their techniques. In the initial stage of their term, new Judges are observed and appraised by a former citizenship judge, as they perform their decision-making and ceremonial duties. A written report is provided to the Senior Judge and a plan for action is developed to identify where additional training is required. The mentorship program provides the Senior Judge with much needed time to focus his attention on other issues relating to the Commission. A possible expansion of the program to include observation and appraisal of established Judges will be considered in the new fiscal year.

Training and Professional Development

Orientation Training

With seven new appointments this fiscal year, the Commission was able to redesign the orientation training program. The intensive five day training session is delivered by an experienced former Citizenship Judge with presentations by CIC operations, policy and legal staff. New Judges are introduced to the legal requirements of citizenship, their decision-making role and their promotion role as ambassadors of Canadian citizenship. The effectiveness of the redesigned training program is evaluated following each session and further refinements are made on an ongoing basis.

The one week orientation training is very intensive and a six month refresher course on residence, language and knowledge requirements and prohibitions would be beneficial. This proposal will be considered in the 2008–2009 fiscal year.

The Commission would like to express its appreciation to CIC for its on-going support of our training courses. CIC representatives deliver presentations which both clarify and highlight key elements of the citizenship process and the respective roles and responsibilities of local CIC staff and Judges.

Second Language Training

The language training was implemented in 2003 to allow the Commission to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the Official Languages Act. The goal is to acquire a sufficient level of ability and confidence in Judges to administer the oath of citizenship in both official languages, and to incorporate both official languages in remarks at ceremonies and other public events. Private lessons with qualified language instructors are offered to all unilingual Judges.

As of March 2008, there were 10 judges enrolled in second language training. The Senior Judge’s Office will continue to offer this training and will strive to increase participation in the next fiscal year.

Improved Management Practices

The Commission continued to further the management initiatives begun in the previous fiscal year. The Office of the Senior Judge issued several key directives for Judges including operational policies on the withdrawal of citizenship applications, residency implications of conditional sentence orders and the scheduling of promotion activities.

The Senior Judge’s Office revised its supplementary conflict of interest guidelines for both full-time and part-time judges to reflect the stricter provisions incorporated in the Conflict of Interest Act which came into force on July 9, 2007, as part of the Federal Accountability Act.

The Senior Judge also revised the Commission’s public complaints process by introducing the Protocol Addressing Conduct Issues. The Protocol applies only to complaints regarding the professional conduct of citizenship judges. It does not apply to the requirements for citizenship, the decisions of judges or the exercise of discretion in the course of their quasi-judicial function. Applicants who wish to contest a decision made by a Judge can file an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.

Both the Conflict of Interest Guidelines and the Conduct Protocol were ratified by all Judges at the Commission’s Annual General Meeting.

Annual General Meeting

The Annual General Meeting (AGM) is the sole opportunity for Judges to meet as a group and provides an excellent forum for training and professional development.

The 2007 AGM was held in the National Capital Region. Judges participated in workshops on residency, ethics as well as a presentation on the modernization of the citizenship process.

Two training sessions were devoted to decision-writing. The highlight of these sessions was a power point presentation from CIC legal services entitled “Citizenship Judges’ Survival Guide: Thinking and Writing for Appeal”. Judges suggested that more time be devoted in the next annual meeting to this topic and to presentations in this interactive format.

As in previous years Judges’ feedback was positive on the benefit of having training incorporated into the AGM. The forum presents an opportunity for Judges to learn from each other, share best practices and discuss issues of concern.

Reorganization of the Office of the Senior Judge

The Commission was successful in retaining the increase in operational funding obtained in the previous fiscal year. With solid funding, the Office of the Senior Judge was equipped to conduct the Commission’s business.

In October 2007, funding was approved to staff the position of Senior Advisor on a permanent basis. The Senior Advisor provides in house expertise and program and policy advice to assist the Senior Judge.

The staffing of the Supervisor, Administrative Services position in December 2007, increased our capacity to maintain accurate financial records and reports on budget administration.

The position of Administrative Assistant will be staffed in the next fiscal year.

Promotional Activities

The Commission continued to promote and celebrate citizenship across Canada. Judges engaged in special ceremonies and accepted speaking engagements in schools and at events sponsored by community and service organizations. All Judges are encouraged to submit quarterly reports to the Senior Judge’s Office on their promotion activities which are over and above their regular ceremonial duties.

The table below provides the summary of promotion events for 2007–2008.

Event Total Number Attendance Average Attendance
On special citizenship ceremonies 174 36,161 208
Off-site special citizenship ceremonies 29 11,112 383
Reaffirmation ceremonies 24 4,776 199
Speaking events 37 2,798 76
Media 10 N/A N/A
Other 5    
TOTAL 279 57,645 206

Judges performed a total of 279 special promotion and education activities. This figure is down from the 443 activities reported in 2006–2007. One reason for the decline is that budget constraints within CIC left local offices without the funding required to plan enhanced ceremonies. Also, the statistics provided are based solely on the activities of the Judges who submitted promotion records to our office and therefore, do not reflect all promotion activities undertaken by the Commission. The Senior Judge’s Office will continue to impress upon Judges the importance of submitting reports on a regular basis in order to provide an accurate account of promotion work undertaken by the Commission.

Highlights of our promotional initiatives are further described below:

Enhanced Ceremonies

The goal of enhanced ceremonies is to make ceremonies more meaningful and interactive for new and established Canadians and to encourage the participation of communities in welcoming new Canadians. Unfortunately budget constraints experienced in the previous fiscal carried over to 2007–2008 hampering the Department’s ability to provide funding to local CIC offices to undertake these ceremonies. It is hoped that the next fiscal year will see sufficient funding from the Department for an increase in the number of these valuable activities.

Citizenship Week 2007

Canada’s Citizenship Week is an annual event celebrating the value of citizenship, particularly with respect to the privileges and responsibilities of being a Canadian citizen. The theme for 2007 was My Citizenship. During this year’s event, hundreds of people became Canadian citizens and hundreds more reaffirmed their commitment to Canada through citizenship ceremonies in communities across the country. Every Citizenship Judge participated in either local or national ceremonies throughout citizenship week in addition to speaking events at schools and community organizations.

VI. Year in numbers

Like all federal departments and agencies, the Commission continues to operate in an environment of challenges and fiscal constraints. In order to fulfil its role in ensuring the integrity of the Citizenship process, the Commission must constantly maintain a delicate balance between sustaining and improving program service delivery, the active promotion of citizenship, and the judicious management of funds.

1. Summary of Citizenship Activities – 2006–2007

Total citizenship grant applications received 191,544
Total citizenship grant applications processed 178,248
Number of new citizens 183,477
Number of unsuccessful applications: 5,386
Number of applications withdrawn or abandoned 5,638
Ceremonies conducted 2,901
Average processing time (in months) 11.3

2. New Citizens and Regional Distribution

Region Number
Atlantic 1,707
Quebec 21,443
Ontario 98,669
Prairies/NWT 29,748
British Columbia/Yukon 28,841
New Citizens Total 183,477

3. Top Ten Source Countries of Birth of New Citizens

Country Number of New Citizens Percentage
1. India 23,619 13%
2. China 22,468 12%
3. Philippines 11,694 6%
4. Pakistan 10,592 6%
5. South Korea 5,604 3%
6. Iran 4,894 3%
7. United States of America 4,175 2%
8. Romania 4,141 2%
9. Sri Lanka 4,100 2%
10. England 3,861 2%

Note: The top ten source countries represent 51% of all new citizens.

4. Citizenship Commission Activities

There was an increase in the complement of Judges from 28 in April 2007 to 33 in March 2008. The percentage of full-time appointments decreased from 68% in the previous fiscal year to 61% in 2007–2008. The percentage of part-time judges rose from 32% to 39%. Our complement of 33 Judges (20 full time and 13 part‑time) performed the work 28 full-time equivalents (FTE).

The productivity of the full complement of Judges and the average output per FTE is presented in the following charts.

Activity National Total Average Output per FTE
Grant Applications
Applications received [ Note 1 ] 191,544  
Applications processed [ Note 2 ] 178,248 6,366
Applications approved 183,477 6,553
Applications not approved 5,386 192
Applications withdrawn or abandoned 5,638 201
Ceremonies conducted 2,901 104
Citizenship Hearings
Hearings conducted [ Note 3 ] 19,025 679
Retention, Renunciation and Resumption
Resumption
Applications received 210 8
Applications processed    
Applications approved 120 4
Applications not approved 0  
Administrative action required [ Note 4 ] 34  
Decisions pending    
Retention [ Note 5 ]
Applications received 1,143 N/A
Applications for processing    
Applications approved 869  
Applications not approved 15  
Administrative action required 150  
Renunciation
Applications received 126 N/A
Applications processed    
Applications approved 81  
Applications not approved 2  
5(3) Waiver
Waiver recommended 376  
Waiver granted 352  
Waiver not granted 24  
5(4) Waiver
Waiver recommended 101  

Appeals to Federal Court (Applicant)
  2006–2007 2007–2008
Appeals filed 42 52
Appeals resolved 48 46
Appeals granted (includes consent) 11 10
Appeals refused 26 26
Appeals withdrawn by applicant) 11 10
Appeals to Federal Court (Minister)
Appeals filed 7 28
Appeals resolved 5 12
Appeals granted (includes consent) 2 8
Appeals refused 1 1
Appeals withdrawn 2 3
Judicial Review – Mandamus
Cases filed 13 6
Cases resolved 8 11
Cases granted (includes consent) 7 10
Cases denied 1 1
Cases withdrawn 0 0
Judicial Review – Certiorari
Cases filed 4 8
Cases resolved 3 2
Cases granted 1 1
Cases denied 1 1
Cases withdrawn 1 0
Civil Action
Cases filed 5 2
Cases resolved 8 0
Cases granted 6 0
Cases denied 1 0
Cases filed 5 1
Revocation
Cases filed 5 1
Cases resolved 8 3
Cases granted 6 2
Cases denied 1 0
Cases withdrawn 1 1

VII. Objectives for 2008–2009

The Commission’s top priority has always been to achieve a full complement of Judges. The terms of nine Judges will end in the next fiscal year. The Commission will strongly urge the Government to address the operational requirement of naming appointments and reappointments expeditiously in order to maintain a sufficient number of Judges. It is also important that appointments be distributed to meet the requirements of regions where the case load warrants more than one Judge appointed in local offices.

The Commission will increase its efforts to be recognized within the Department as a source of expert advice and guidance on key policy issues in the citizenship process. As front-line practitioners, Judges are equipped to offer valuable insight and experience in defining challenges and proposing strategies to enhance the integrity of citizenship process. We will continue to encourage the Department to include Judges as members of working groups and steering committees formed to discuss and implement changes to the citizenship process.

Citizenship Judges offer a vast array of professional experience and dedication to community service. The Senior Judge’s Office recognizes that an appointment in which 90% of the duties relate to decision-making and only 10% to ceremonies requires extensive training on the legal framework for assessing citizenship applications and effective decision writing. While budget constraints often dictate the amount and type of training we can provide, the Senior Judge’s Office will request the funds necessary to expand the orientation training to include follow-up legal and decision writing training sessions.


Footnotes

  • [1] Represents total number of applications received by CPC-Sydney. [back to text]
  • [2] Represents total number of applications processed in 2007–2008 – not all applications received are processed in the same fiscal year. [back to text]
  • [3] Statistics are not available on the number of hearings resulting in approval and non-approval. [back to text]
  • [4] File requires additional documentation, revisions or returned for use of incorrect form. [back to text]
  • [5] For administrative efficiency, retention and renunciation cases are decided by the Senior Judge. [back to text]
Date Modified: