 
 IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD (IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION) 
 COMMISSION DE L’IMMIGRATION ET DU STATUT DE RÉFUGIÉ (SECTION D’APPEL DE L’IMMIGRATION)
 
 IAD File No./Dossier : 
TA4-06963   
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
 
RESIDENCY OBLIGATION 
  Appellant(s) Appelant(s) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   Respondent Intimé 
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration 
   Date(s) and Place Date(s) et Lieu de of Hearing l’audience 
June 6, 2005 Toronto, Ontario
 
 Date of Decision Date de la Décision 
July 29, 2005  
 
 Panel Tribunal 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  Appellant’s Counsel Conseil de l’appelant(s) 
      
  Minister’s Counsel Conseil de l’intimé 
XXXXXXXXXXXX  
   
La Direction des services de révision et  de traduction de la CISR peut vous procurer les présents motifs de décisi on dans l’autre langue officielle. Vous n’avez qu’à en faire la demande par éc rit à l’adresse suivante : 344,  rue Slater, 14
e  étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1, par courriel à  translation.traduction@irb.gc.ca ou par télécopie au (613) 947-3213. You can obtain the translation of thes e reasons for decision in the other official language by writing to the Editing and Translation Services Directorate of the IRB, 344 Slater Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K1, or by sending a request to  the following e-mail address: translation.traduction@irb.gc.ca or to facsimile number (613) 947-3213. 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA4-06963 1 
 Reasons for Decision 
 [1] These are my reasons for decision of a residency obligation appeal by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  The visa officer determined that  the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the residency obligation under section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act  (IRPA ), more particularly that the appellant had not complied with the residency obligation for at least 730 days in the five-year  period immediately before April 6, 2004, the date the appellant applied for a travel document.
1  [2] The appellant was unrepresented.  The a ppellant challenges the legal validity of the refusal under section 67(1)(a) of IRPA
. The appellant also seeks relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under section 67(1)(c) of IRPA
.  [3] The evidence in the appeal consisted of the appellant's oral testimony and the Record.  For the purposes of these reasons, I do not repeat the contents of all that here.  However, I have considered all of it, and the submissions of  the appellant and the Minister’s counsel.  [4] The appellant testified that he became a permanent resident of Canada on June 17, 1997, that he left Canada shortly afterwards to take up  employment as a consultant in Dubai, and that he has been working and living in Dubai ever since.  It is clear from both the CAIPS notes in the Record
2 and the appellant’s admissions in testimony th at, as a result, he did not spend 730 days in Canada from April 6, 1999 to April 6, 2004, as required, even counting a one-year returning resident permit and numerous visits to Canada in  those years.  However, the appellant also testified, it is not disputed by the parties, an d I find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s Canadian citizen spouse moved to D ubai to work for a private company in March 2001 and that they have both been co-habiting there since.
3  The visa officer refused to credit the appellant with the time he spent in Dubai w ith his spouse after March 2001 as “accompanying” time within the meaning of section 28(2)(ii) of IRPA
.4 
                                                           
1 See Refusal Letter in the Record at page 3.  
2 See Record page 5. 
3 See also CAIPS notes in Record at page 5.  
4 Ibid., page 6. 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA4-06963 2 
 [5] Respondent’s counsel conceded that the a ppeal must be allowed on legal grounds if the visa officer was wrong to refuse to credit the appellant with Canadian residency for “accompanying” a Canadian citizen under section 28(2)(ii) of IRPA
 for these several years of consistent ordinary residence with his Canadi an citizen spouse in Dubai while she was there working for a private company after March 2001.   [6] “Accompanying” is not defined in IRPA
 or the Immigration and Refugee Protection 
Regulations  (the IRP Regulations ).  Moreover, while submissions were made, neither party provided me with any assisting legal authority  as to the meaning of “accompanying” in the context of section 28(2)(ii) of IRPA
.   [7] According to XXXXXXXX, the in terpretation of Canadian statutes ought to be approached in the following manner:  Today there is only one principle or approach [to statutory interpretation], namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire conext and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.
5  [8] With respect to grammatical and ordinary meaning, various dictionaries define the verb “accompany” and the adjective “accompanying” as having one of their meanings to be to “go with” and “going with” someone.
6  It is evident from the CAIPS notes that the visa officer decided that “going with” is the meaning of “accompanying” as it appears in section 28(2)(ii) and that the appellant was therefore not “accompanying” his spouse within the meaning of that section because he did not actually go anywhere.  He was already in Dubai when his spouse went there to work in March 2001.  She joined him, ra ther than “the other way around,” as it appears the visa officer thought should have been the case if he were to be correctly found to be “accompanying” her within the meaning of section of 28(2)(ii).
7  However, the same dictionaries 
                                                           
5 Medovarski :  M.C.I.  v. XXXXXXXXXX, XXXX  (F.C.A., no. A-249-03), Evans, Rothstein, Pelletier (dissenting), March 3, 2004, 2004 FCA 85. 
6 Oxford Concise Dictionary, Camrbridge Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 
7 See Record, page 6. 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA4-06963 3 
 indicate that “accompany” and “accompanying” also have a broader meaning that can include to “coexist” and “coexisting.
8”    [9] There is no dispute that the appellant was not  ordinarily resident and coexisting with his Canadian citizen spouse in Dubai after March 2001.  So, it seems that the refusal can only stand only legal grounds if there is some reason why th e meaning of “accompanying” as it appears in section 28(2)(ii) should be restricted to its narrower “going with” connotation.  [10] In my view, the scheme of the statute indi cates that it should not be restricted to the narrower meaning.  The broader “c oexisting” interpretation rather than the narrower “going with” is more consistent with another provision in the rest of the residency obligation scheme in section 28 of IRPA
, the employment provision in section 28 (2)(iii).  The word “employed” in that provision clearly does not require the perman ent resident to have been physically present in Canada when taking up full-time employment with a Canadian business abroad in order to qualify within the provision: a permanent resident  could still obtain residency credit from that provision by taking up full-time employment with a Canadian business when already outside Canada.  If a permanent resident can obtain re sidency credit under by connecting to a Canadian business outside Canada,
9 I see no reason why a permanent re sident should not obtain similar credit from connecting to a Canadian spouse outside Canada,
10 or, for that matter, another permanent resident who is their spouse who is employed full-time by a Canadian business outside Canada.
11  It seems to me from reading section 28 that the important issue when it comes to residency obligation is who the permanent resi dent is with while abroad – for example, a Canadian citizen, or a Canadian business, or a permanent resident working for a Canadian business, and not how and where the permanent resident came to be with that person.  [11] I have also considered section 3 of IRPA
.  With greatest respect to respondent’s counsel submissions, and while I acknowledge that an exam ination of the objectives of the Act suggest that arguments might be made both ways, I am not  persuaded that they disclose a reason why the 
                                                           
8 Oxford Concise Dictionary, Camrbridge Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 
9 Section 28(2)(iii) of IRPA . 
10 Section 28(2)(ii). 
11 Section 28(2)(iv). 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA4-06963 4 
 meaning of “accompanying” as it appears in sect ion 28(2)(ii) ought to be restricted to the narrower “going with” connotation.    [12] I would also note that it was open to drafte rs to use different and more precise wording if the more restricted “going with” mean ing was to be the correct meaning.    [13] For all these reasons, I interpret “ accompanying” in section 28(2)(ii) of IRPA
 to have its plain dictionary meaning.  As this meaning incl udes coexisting and as I find that the appellant was coexisting with his Canadian citizen s pouse in Dubai after March 2001, I find that the appellant was “accompanying” his Canadian ci tizen spouse in Dubai after March 2001.   [14] As the visa post incorrectly interpre ted the meaning of “accompanying” in section 28(2)(ii) of IRPA
 to refuse to credit the appellant credit for this lengthy period of time “accompanying” his Canadian citizen spouse in Duba i, I find that the refusal is legally invalid under section 67(1)(a) of IRPA
.  [15] For all these reasons, I am allowing the appeal.   [16] As I have allowed the appeal on legal grounds , it is not necessary for me to make and I therefore do not make a determination on any humanitarian and compassionate grounds for relief that may also exist.  [17] This is not a reason for my determination.  However, I would also note in passing that the visa officer and the respondent’s counsel took a positi on in this case that is apparently contrary to at least one of the respondent’s documents on this issue.  According to one of the respondent’s manuals:   In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it nece ssary to determine for what purpose. . . as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA4-06963 5 
 Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met.
12  
   
NOTICE OF DECISION 
 The appeal is allowed
.  The decision of the officer made outside of Canada on the appellant’s residency obligation is set aside.  The Immigration Appeal Division finds that the appellant has not lost his permanent resident status.       “XXXXXXXXXXXXXX”  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
     _____________July 29, 2005
_______________     D a t e          
                                                          
 
12 ENF 23 ,  2004-11-17, Loss of Permanent Resident Status,  “Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada” at 7.5 on page 17. Judicial review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court.  You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application. 
2005 CanLII 56917 (CA IRB)

