Date: 20150915
Docket: A-124-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 194
CORAM:

TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.

BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and

ZUNERA ISHAQ
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

GLEASON J.A.

 Date: 20150915
Docket: A-124-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 194
CORAM:

TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.

BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and

ZUNERA ISHAQ
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.

[1]

In the judgment under appeal, the Federal Court declared that the change in policy

applicable to women who wear the niqab, that requires them to unveil to take the oath of
citizenship, was unlawful. This policy change first came into effect on December 12, 2011 and

 Page: 2
was initially enshrined in Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s [CIC’s] Operational Bulletin
359. The policy change was shortly thereafter incorporated into section 6.5 of CIC’s policy
manual, CP 15:Guide to Citizenship Ceremonies.

[2]

One of the reasons given by the Federal Court for its judgment was the determination that

this policy change was mandatory. The Federal Court also found that the policy change
conflicted with the requirements of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 and with the
regulations made under that Act.

[3]

The appellant has conceded that if we do not interfere with the Federal Court’s finding as

to the mandatory nature of the policy change, this appeal must be dismissed in part because
paragraph 27(1)(h) of the Citizenship Act delegates authority to make regulations regarding the
taking of the oath of citizenship to the Governor in Council and this policy change was not
adopted by the Governor in Council.

[4]

While we do not necessarily agree with all the reasons given by the Federal Court, we see

no basis to interfere with the Federal Court’s finding as to the mandatory nature of the impugned
change in policy as this finding is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It follows that this
appeal must be dismissed.

[5]

We decline to address the issues concerning the legality of the impugned policy change

under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a determination on this point is
unnecessary for the disposition of this case and the record before us is fairly scant as concerns

 Page: 3
the Charter challenge. Moreover, we believe that it is in the interests of justice that we not delay
in issuing our decision through the examination of an unnecessary issue so as to hopefully leave
open the possibility for the respondent to obtain citizenship in time to vote in the upcoming
federal election.

[6]

As a result, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

“Mary J.L. Gleason”
J.A.

 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

A-124-15

STYLE OF CAUSE:

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION v. ZUNERA
ISHAQ

PLACE OF HEARING:

Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:

SEPTEMBER 15, 2015

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:

GLEASON J.A.

APPEARANCES:
Peter Southey
Negar Ashemi
Julie Waldman

FOR THE APPELLANT

Lorne Waldman
Naseem Mithoowani

CO-COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT

Marlys Edwardh
Daniel Sheppard

CO-COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT

Courtney Harris
Haley Pitcher

FOR THE INTERVENER

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE APPELLANT

Waldman & Associates
Toronto, Ontario

CO-COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT

 Page: 2
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
Toronto, Ontario

CO-COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT

Ministry of the Attorney General
Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE INTERVENER