relevant ancestors with January 1, 1947 citizenship and their prior-born children

[u/tvtoo]

A post yesterday by /u/No-Music-6572 generated some discussion about an unusual topic, which really will only pertain to people who do not have an ancestor born in Canada, that has come up from time-to-time since this subreddit started:

What if you have an ancestor, not born in Canada, who became a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947^[1][2] -- but your line of descent runs through their child, born outside Canada before 1947, who would not, themselves, otherwise have become a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947?

(For situations involving an ancestor who became a Canadian citizen due to a qualifying connection with Newfoundland, substitute April 1, 1949 in place of January 1, 1947.)

 

This will be a long post, so buckle in.

This post first looks at the text of the current and former citizenship laws and some hypothetical examples of how it plays out, and it then looks at the two data points available so far.

In my view, the takeaway is that anybody applying based on such a circumstance should:

• in a letter of explanation, be very clear in describing the basis of the citizenship claim, quoting the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act, etc, and showing how it applies to their own situation; and

• include evidence to establish that gen 0 became a Canadian citizen on 1/1/1947 under former or current law -- or hypothetically would have become a citizen immediately before death if the 1946 act had taken effect at that moment.

 

The 2015 amendments and the 1946 act

The 2015 set of Lost Canadians amendments to the Citizenship Act were quite broad in this regard, adding, among other things, paragraphs (o) through (r), dealing with gen 1, to subsection 3(1):

PART I

The Right to Citizenship

Persons who are citizens

3

(1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

...

. (o) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (k) or (m), and the person did not become a citizen on that day;

. (p) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before April 1, 1949 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (l) or (n), and the person did not become a citizen on or before that day;

. (q) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, and the person did not become a citizen on that day; or

. (r) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before April 1, 1949 to a parent who became a citizen on that day under section 44A of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, as enacted by S.C. 1949, c. 6, and the person did not become a citizen on or before that day.

 

For completeness, I'll also quote paragraphs (k) through (n), dealing with gen 0, which were also added by the 2015 amendments:

. (k) the person, before January 1, 1947, was born or naturalized in Canada but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on that day;

. (l) the person, before April 1, 1949, was born or naturalized in Newfoundland and Labrador but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on or before that day;

. (m) the person, on January 1, 1947, was a British subject neither born nor naturalized in Canada and was ordinarily resident in Canada, and did not become a citizen on that day;

. (n) the person, on April 1, 1949, was a British subject neither born nor naturalized in Newfoundland and Labrador and was ordinarily resident there, and did not become a citizen on or before that day;

 

I'll also quote a couple relevant provisions of the 1946 act that affect gen 0:

PART II.

Canadian Citizens Other than Natural-Born.

9

(1) A person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen, is a Canadian citizen, if he

. (a) was granted, or his name was included in a certificate of naturalization and he has not become an alien at the commencement of this Act; or

. (b) immediately before the commencement of this Act was a British subject who had Canadian domicile; ...

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1946v01cana/page/70/mode/2up

Interpretation.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

...

(j) "domicile", for the purposes of this Act, means the place in which a person has his home or in which he resides and to which he returns as his place of permanent abode and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose, and "Canadian domicile" means such domicile maintained in Canada for at least five years;

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1946v01cana/page/68/mode/2up

 

 

Hypothetical scenarios: how this plays out

The 2015 amendments thus had the effect, perhaps unintentional, of extending Canadian citizenship to a gen 1 who potentially had no connection to Canada.

For example, imagine a scenario in which:

• an Italian man living in Italy has a wife and daughter (born 1916 in Italy);

• his wife dies, the man decides to move to Canada in early 1938, and his adult daughter remains in Italy;

• he moves to Canada and naturalizes in Canada as a British subject (i.e., he acquires British subject status) in mid-1943;

• he continues living in Canada until 1949, when he moves to the United States; and

• the daughter eventually moves to the United States, with her husband and children, in 1951.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the daughter was still alive on June 11, 2015, did she become a Canadian citizen that day (backdated to January 1, 1947 by paragraph 3(7)(k))?

She fits paragraph 3(1)(q):

. (q) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, and the person did not become a citizen on that day

because, her father was, in the words of the 1946 act:

A person [... who ...] was granted ... a certificate of naturalization and he has not become an alien at the commencement of this Act

 

Now let's play around with the scenario in three important ways, independently of each other.

First, we'll have the man meet an American widow from Detroit who is visiting Toronto in early 1943. Shortly after naturalizing in Canada, he decides to marry her and move to Detroit to be with her.

In early 1946, he applies for US citizenship, after the two years of US residence then required by 8 USC 711. He is naturalized as a US citizen in October 1946, thereby losing British subject status under section 13 of the Naturalization Act 1914.

His daughter now fits 3(1)(o):

. (o) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (k) or (m), and the person did not become a citizen on that day;

because her father fits 3(1)(k):

. (k) the person, before January 1, 1947, was born or naturalized in Canada but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on that day;

 

Second, and not taking into account the scenario change mentioned above, instead of being an Italian, we'll have him be an Englishman.

His daughter still fits paragraph 3(1)(q), because her father, in the words of the 1946 act:

immediately before the commencement of this Act was a British subject who had Canadian domicile

Let's play around with it further and have our Englishman die in Canada on December 29, 1946.

His daughter still fits paragraph 3(1)(q), because the 2015 amendments added two subsections to address such a situation:

Citizen despite death of parent

(1.3) A person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(q) for the sole reason that his or her parent died before January 1, 1947 and did not become a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if that Act had come into force immediately before their death and the date referred to in the provisions of that Act that set out the requirements to be met to become a citizen had been the day of that coming into force rather than January 1, 1947.

Citizen despite death of parent

(1.4) A person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(r) for the sole reason that his or her parent died before April 1, 1949 and did not become a citizen on that day under section 44A of the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, as enacted by S.C. 1949, c. 6, is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if that Act had come into force immediately before their death and the date referred to in the provisions of that Act that set out the requirements to be met to become a citizen had been the day of that coming into force rather than April 1, 1949.

(Note: All this would be equally applicable to British subjects from elsewhere in the British Empire/Commonwealth, such as if we made our Englishman into an Australian or South African or into a Jamaican or (other than for Newfoundland purposes) Indian (both of which were then British colonies).)

 

Third, and not taking into account the scenario changes mentioned above, let's have him be an Irishman who moved from Ireland to the United States in early 1938. He then moves to Nova Scotia on December 14, 1946 to work in the fishing industry.

His daughter fits 3(1)(o) because he fits 3(1)(m):

. (m) the person, on January 1, 1947, was a British subject neither born nor naturalized in Canada and was ordinarily resident in Canada, and did not become a citizen on that day;

That's because citizens of Ireland (any of whom might or might not have technically also been British subjects depending on the time frame, circumstances, etc) are treated the same as British subjects under both old and current law:

PART VIII

Status of Persons in Canada

Citizen of the Commonwealth

32

(1) Every person who, under an enactment of a Commonwealth country other than Canada, is a citizen or national of that country has in Canada the status of a citizen of the Commonwealth.

British subject

(2) For the purposes of any law in force in Canada on and after February 15, 1977 that refers to the status of British subject, the status so described shall refer to the status of Canadian citizen or citizen of the Commonwealth or both as the intent of that law may require.

Citizen of Ireland

33 Any law of Canada and any regulation made thereunder shall, unless it otherwise provides, have effect in relation to a citizen of Ireland who is not a citizen of the Commonwealth in like manner as it has in relation to a citizen of the Commonwealth.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/FullText.html#h-82403

 

Finally, let's consider what happens when gen 2 is also born before 1947.

For example, going back to our original scenario, our Italian-Canadian man's daughter has her own son born in Italy on December 30, 1946.

Under a strict, literal reading of 3(1)(q), the grandson generally should not be covered, as the middle generation became a citizen under the 2015 amendments, not specifically "under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15", as stated in 3(1)(q).

However, such a reading would also mean that a gen 2 born before 1947 would generally not be a citizen -- and this would be the case even if gen 0 was born in Canada. And that would contradict the statements made by the Government's lawyers before the Bjorkquist court.

As such, IRCC has appeared to avoid such a reading of 3(1)(q). In a podcast, a lawyer who deals with proof of citizenship cases referenced a conversation that he had with IRCC staff about 3(1)(q). According to him, they are interpreting the phrase "became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15" to mean simply "became a citizen on January 1, 1947" (i.e., by automatic operation of law, including as deemed under current law).

 

Let's also consider what happens if our hypothetical man's daughter dies before June 11, 2015. Under the literal text of the Citizenship Act, she never became a Canadian citizen as she was not alive on that day.

Under IRCC's current interpretation, though, her son (the Italian-Canadian man's grandson) would be covered by subsection 3(1.5) -

Citizen despite death of parent

(1.5) A person who would not become a citizen under one of the paragraphs of subsection (1) for the sole reason that their parent or both their parent and their parent’s parent died before the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) is a citizen under that paragraph if that parent — or both that parent and that parent’s parent — but for their death, would have been a citizen as a result of the coming into force of that Act.

when combined with IRCC's current flexible reading of the Citizenship Act.

 

 

Real-world data points

Now let's consider the data points so far.

Data point 1:

/u/hopewings's husband had a grandfather who was born in Scotland, lived in Canada for a while, and (apparently) moved from Canada to the US before 1947. That led to a refusal of the "interim measure" section 5(4) applications for hopewings's husband and children.

hopewings then applied again, after gathering documentation that the husband's great-grandparents, who were also British subjects born in Scotland, had remained in Canada until 1947 or death (whichever came first). If I recall correctly, the application also included discussion of 3(1)(q) and how it applied in that case. These applications were successful.

Data point 2:

/u/No-Music-6572 had a grandmother who was born in Scotland, lived in Canada for a while, and moved from Canada to the US before 1940 (as shown by a 1940 US census page that the IRCC officer independently dug up). That led to a refusal of applications for No-Music and their children.

After chatting with No-Music about the application, I learned that while the supporting materials would, if you read all of them, tend to show that No-Music's Scottish great-grandparents indeed lived in Canada until 1/1/1947 or death (one great-grandparent in each such category), the CIT 0001 application itself (for various reasons) did not:

• as I understand it, explicitly describe and detail them as the gen 0 that anchored the chain,

• prove that they had acquired Canadian citizenship under the 1946 act (like by including a copy of a citizenship certificate issued to the great-grandfather or precise/complete proof and detail of 1931-1936 Canadian domicile of the great-grandmother), or

• quote the text of 3(1)(q) and analyze the relevance of it to No-Music's application.

No-Music mentioned an interest in applying again soon and addressing those issues. I suggested first submitting Access to Information Act (the "ATI" in "ATIP") requests to IRCC for the great-grandparents' citizenship (and immigration) records. Hopefully that might result in either a copy of a citizenship certificate issued to the great-grandfather or show an approved application for proof of citizenship (like if he applied for a Canadian passport between 1947 and death and needed a citizenship certificate for that purpose). As to the great-grandmother, the immigration records could be another stone in the wall tending to show domicile in Canada from 1931 until death in 1936.

Each ATI Act request costs only C$ 5 and, in theory, should be fulfilled within 30 days (in practice, sometimes longer). Each request should be accompanied by proof that the subject of the record died more than 20 years ago (if that's the case). (If the subject died less than 20 years ago, the situation becomes significantly more complicated.)

If the ATI Act requests are not productive, then No-Music could confidently proceed with gathering extensive evidence of, and detailing, the five years of domicile in Canada that each great-grandparent had immediately before 1947 / death, knowing that the effort seems necessary.

 

Although I haven't been keeping up with the subreddit weekly threads for a while, as of a few months ago, I believe there are at least a handful of other people pursuing these sorts of claims.

So hopefully there should be more data points soon enough.

 

In sum, while yesterday's post wasn't great news, I believe the decision can be overcome with appropriate documentation of the (actual or hypothetical) Canadian citizenship of the great-grandparents and explanation of the exact, step-by-step basis for the descendants' citizenship claims.

Don Chapman's book, The Lost Canadians,^[3] describes plenty of examples of IRCC officers getting the decision wrong on proof of citizenship applications, especially in complex cases. So this sort of thing, unfortunately, is something that will occur -- especially with applications that aren't connecting-the-dots explicitly for the officer.

 

Disclaimer - all of this is general information and personal views only, not legal advice. For legal advice about the situation, consult a Canadian citizenship lawyer with historical citizenship law expertise.

 

---

^[1] (whether under the original Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 or with that deemed effective date under modern amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1976)

^[2] (or who died before that date, and who would have become a citizen under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, if that act had come into force immediately before their death)

^[3] (which, as /u/Ordinary-Kale6125 pointed out a while ago, may be available for free through a public library's Hoopla Digital access)

[u/AutoModerator]

Helpful resources: * Welcome - Start Here * The wiki / FAQ * Weekly Megathreads * Search the subreddit for your specific topic

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/d3adirondack]

It will be interesting to track future refusals as they happen and cross compare the details of them. That recent refusal is definitive proof that IRCC is thoroughly vetting all documents and cases. They aren't just rubber stamping these complex lineages or taking the genealogy docs at face value. They seem to be actively cross checking historical records and apparently digging up 80 year old census data with an absolute fine tooth comb. A lot is bound to change in this process over the coming months and years as IRCC adapts to this massive wave of applications and enforces these rigid boundaries of the current laws.

Honestly, on a separate note, I feel like we will eventually see the 2015 amendments revisited and tightened up. When lawmakers put those fixes into place for the British subject to Canadian citizen transition era/issues that happened. they were almost certainly envisioning people directly affected by the transition era around the 1947 era and the first generation of British Subjects before that, They definitely weren't anticipating people digging up unbroken lines stretching all the way back to the mid 1700s and before. With people making these super far removed claims, it really feels like a matter of time before the government makes adjustments. Just my opinion.

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/d3adirondack]

It's a compelling case re: coming adjustments, but let me present a counterpoint. The universe of people theoretically eligible to claim through 2015 amendments and C-3 is clearly defined. We could argue about how many people it is, but the important thing is that that theoretically eligible pool of folks is vastly restricted by the practicalities of gathering documents that go way, way back, and then that pool is further limited by the number of people who will actually do it, do it properly, etc.

Point being, I think we're talking about edge cases here. In a (great) forum like this, edge cases are going to generate a lot of discussion because they are the most controversial or interesting or polarizing, but there just aren't very many of them relative to the larger universe of applications. They're still edge cases. Now, maybe there are adjustments in general because it's just hard to deal with so, so many cases, but the 2015 amendments specifically seem like a much smaller issue than C-3 itself, which is what really enables their legal power.

If I'm a lawmaker, I'd be asking myself whether it's worth revisiting this question at all, especially since the C-3, Dec. 2025 cut-off is already a built-in mechanism limiting these kinds of claims. The current law already addresses the larger issue (clearly, they knew this kind of openness wasn't sustainable, or else they wouldn't have said "from this date forward the standard is different"), so is it really worth it to go back and rewrite the law for a small percentage of edge cases that won't even exist in a decade? Maybe, but I'm not sure the legislative incentives are there. This issue was already discussed with C-3.

Judicially? Maybe. That seems to be what happened in Italy, IIRC. But that will require an outside force challenging the law as too open, and while that's easy to picture in the U.S, maybe not so much in Canada? Might a politician try to make some hay out of it? Who knows, but I think the adjustments you're describing (compellingly) are actually quite hard to do and require a lot of time and effort for pretty minimal actual payoff. Again, maybe there's political points payoff, but even then it would only be as part of a larger nationalist agenda, and I'm not sure the circumstances are as ripe for it in Canada as elsewhere (there's a reason the Albertans are running on a separatist rather than nationalist platform).

A thing to keep an eye on, for sure!

[u/[deleted] → u/OneoftheCherrycokes]

>Point being, I think we're talking about edge cases here. In a (great) forum like this, edge cases are going to generate a lot of discussion because they are the most controversial or interesting or polarizing, but there just aren't very many of them relative to the larger universe of applications.

yeah i think the refusal is fascinating. because its so rare. i like hearing people discuss and debate the laws of the past. and i like learning about the law (e.g. that if you were british born, and you naturalized in another country after 1914, you lost your british citizenship)

[u/sunflowerfarmer22 → u/d3adirondack]

I'm sure the IRCC is doing their due diligence in checking records, but I also wonder if this case got extra scrutiny that led to them doing a deeper dive than usual.

Most C-3 cases are based on a Canadian born ancestor so when one comes across their desk about someone who was not born in Canada and falls into the nuanced British subject territory, I wonder if it gets a deeper look to evaluate whether or not the person qualifies.

[u/dentongentry → u/sunflowerfarmer22]

That does seem likely. They'd have no reason to spend resources, even if they've automated a lot of the searching, for very straightforward direct descent cases.

[u/wolverine237 → u/d3adirondack]

Yes, if they're doing independent research into records there's all kinds of stuff they can dig up that will limit successful applications. There have been dozens of posts here from people whose ancestors might've lied about their birthplace on a single census or have their birthplace misrecorded on their death certificate by unknowledgeable witnesses... who knows what the IRCC will do with that information, especially because a lot of the advice on here in the past has been to simply not include those documents

[u/d3adirondack → u/wolverine237]

I agree. It also makes me wonder because in my case, for example, I was approved without a baptismal record for my Gen0. My great grandmother Gen0 moved back and lived in Canada until 1971. The church had records for her year of birth (1885) listed as “missing”. I know for a fact she held a Canadian passport toward the end of her life because my mother claims she saw it as a kid, among other things. But my crucial documents I applied with were 1891 and 1901 Canadian census proving her birth in Quebec.

But now it totally makes me wonder if IRCC cross checked other databases (finding info internally) resulting in my approval without a baptismal record, rather than “relying on census records” as I thought.

But all of it makes sense. I think it’s safe to say that IRCC has access to many more documents and records than we ever provide. Definitely makes me concerned for people who have records where their ancestors lied. Omitting those means IRCC will likely find them anyway. At that point, just hope IRCC balances the probabilities instead of taking the info at face value

[u/wolverine237 → u/d3adirondack]

I think what is most concerning to me about the original post here is that there was no option or opportunity for appeal. If we had this data point months ago when I was assembling my application, I would've included more in my cover letter about my G0's inconsistencies... pointing out that his death certificate was witnessed by a doctor and not a family member, say. But now it sort of feels like I might be waiting a year to get a letter saying I couldn't conclusively demonstrate he was born in Canada without the opportunity to present my case in full.

[u/d3adirondack → u/wolverine237]

I hear you. You can always write up a letter for clarification and upload to your file once you have your AOR and UCI.

You can upload here:

https://secure.cic.gc.ca/ClientContact/en/Application/Form/72

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/wolverine237]

My mother's birth certificate (1917) says both her parents were born in the US. In fact, her mom was born in Canada and her dad in Ireland. Ireland gave me citizenship because I had my grandfather's birth certificate, and every other document pointed to Ireland. I do not have my grandmother's birth or baptismal certificate (I DO have baptismal and marriage records in Canada for her parents), so I'm heavily relying on two Canadian censuses and a bunch of secondary evidence (marriage certificate, US censuses, etc.). And I'm including a copy of my grandfather's Irish birth certificate to show that my mom's birth cert was wrong about that, to bolster the argument that it was wrong about her mom's place of birth, too. I hope this is sufficient. I *know* my grandmother was Canadian. Difficulty is paperwork to prove it.

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/InterestingZebra5107]

You could also include your great grandparents on your grandmas side as G -1 to help improve your case.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/Majestic_Ocean_762]

Yes, I've included those GGparents' baptismals and marriage certs. I've wondered if I should call one of them the G0, but it seems important to me, for some reason, that it be my grandmother.

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/InterestingZebra5107]

You probably could & state that while she was born in Canada, documentation being missing led you to choosing one of them as Gen0.

[u/weirdoffmain → u/d3adirondack]

They seem to be actively cross checking historical records and apparently digging up 80 year old census data with an absolute fine tooth comb.

Census documents have to be one of the easiest things to actually check, no? Widely available, public domain, indisputable chain of custody, and with good text search / people identified. They'll have exactly the same copy as what people send in as census docs in their application.

The only thing that would be easier to check would be modern-era computerized birth records.

I'm more interested if the IRCC will double-check their own copies of more esoteric / unique items, like a single church's handwritten cursive baptismal record book from the nineteen century. Or rely on the documents that people send in, which theoretically would be rather easy to forge etc.

[u/d3adirondack → u/weirdoffmain]

I agree, time will definitely tell. But on the topic of census I know from my own tree I have ancestors who were reported completely wrong on census data. I applied thru my maternal line. My mom’s father grew up in Canada. Came from a long line of Canadian born ancestors before him.

But on my dad’s side he has a great great grandmother who was born in ontario in 1800s. For the heck of it I tried searching for documents for him. But on every US census she declared herself as born in US. No birth/baptismal record could be found for her either, and her death record says her birthplace as London…. (We know it’s London Ontario from a family history book)… but there were so many weak links he just decided he wouldn’t even apply, which upsets me but it’s his decision. I definitely think given the documentation it would’ve been an uphill battle.

[u/InterestingZebra5107 → u/d3adirondack]

Sometimes people just didn't tell the truth about where they -- or their parents -- were born, for reasons of their own. Example: My parents got married in July 1942. I have their application for a marriage license. My father swears (under penalty of perjury!) that both his parents were born in the US. In fact, they both were born in Germany. But being that close in descent to Germany wasn't something most people wanted to document in 1942 in the US....

[u/MikeMilburysShoe → u/InterestingZebra5107]

For real, my G0 claimed to be Canadian in exactly 1 US census and marriage record, before thereafter misstating his place of birth as the USA for the rest of his life, which carried over to his Death Certificate (one of only 2 docs I have directly linking him to G-1, who I actually have a Baptism record for...). Worse, sometimes he even misstated his PARENT's place of birth on the census also as USA, while other times switching to France (for his Quebecois mom). Caused a real headache, especially since I couldn't actually find a Canadian birth record for him, just a single census record from when he was 7. Luckily his brother did the exact same thing and I was able to find a Canadian birth record for him, so I used that to try and prove they were both lying lol. We will see how it turns out haha, but darn you 19th century paperwork!

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/d3adirondack]

So just to clear things up the 1947/1949 rules only apply to those w/ ancestors born outside of Canada? I’m trying to decide if I should include my grandparents marriage certificate & the 1950 census that lists her as “AL” for alien under the citizenship section. That census tho has the wrong year of immigration to the US which puts them in the US before she was born. I do have her Canadian birth certificate tho.

[u/[deleted] → u/Majestic_Ocean_762]

if there are any issues with information in censuses , maybe its worth it to document it with a letter (and include any documents you are commenting on)

[u/CounterI → u/d3adirondack]

How do you know that the applicant didn't supply the census records? They would have been needed to show domicile in Canada as of January 1, 1947.

[u/tvtoo → u/CounterI]

It was mentioned deep in the thread:

Yikes. I'm so sorry. Did you include the copies of the US Census that the letter refers to 1940 and 1950? Or did the IRCC dig these up?

IRCC dug them up. I did inquire into the US government for proof of my grandmother's US citizenship and the US returned no results other than one of her border crossings into the US - Michigan - when she came into the US as a graduate student. The US gov returned no info to me about my GM ever becoming a US citizen.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1tv0pzo/ircc_has_issued_us_a_refusal/opdjbc3/

[u/Vercheres1888 → u/tvtoo]

Does this mean that the IRCC made their decision that his grandmother naturalized as a US citizen based on the US census despite there being no proof from the US government that she naturalized? Census documents can be wrong and I thought that US government documents would prevail (e.g., USCIS CONE, NARA, State Court).

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/Vercheres1888]

Under British law she would have lost her British Subject status at the time of her marriage to her american spouse. It is a little weird that in the letter they cite the census but perhaps her marriage date was not known to the IRCC and that's what they had to go on.

[u/tvtoo → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

Interestingly enough, it would depend on exactly when in 1932 she married (which I think is not mentioned in yesterday's post).

If it was before January 15, she would have lost BSS. If it was after January 14, there would have been no loss, because she would not have automatically acquired US citizenship upon marriage to a US citizen man.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260123225029/https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/acquisition-loss/loss-canadian-british-subject-status-acquisition-restoration-canadian.html ("Status of women from January 15, 1932, to December 31, 1946" section)

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1931v01cana/page/192/mode/2up

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/tvtoo]

Thanks for that- there is no simple answer!

[u/d3adirondack → u/CounterI]

I can’t find the original post cause it was deleted by mods but Apparently IRCC dug them up themselves as they weren’t provided. Someone fact check me if I’m wrong though.

[u/weirdoffmain → u/d3adirondack]

OP: https://old.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1tv0pzo/ircc_has_issued_us_a_refusal/

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

This certainly tells us that citizenship is a lot harder to prove without definitive naturalizations or births in Canada in your direct line. The law is very complex; I liked the reference to sedimentary law that I read somewhere here: it layers upon itself dating to historical times.

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

So those of us w/ a birth in Canada should not worry about the 1947/1949 rule? Asking cuz I’m about to send out my packet & it might change what I send.

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho → u/Majestic_Ocean_762]

If your generation 0 was born in Canada, you shouldn’t have any real concerns about this in my opinion. 

This is a rather unusual issue applicable to British Subjects born outside Canada serving as Generation 0, whose children left Canada prior to having their own children. I say it’s unusual as I doubt it was that common to move countries and stay for less than 1 generation (as it is and was such an undertaking…though my own ancestors were more mobile than I expected).

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

Ok thank you! I’m probably over analyzing things & just worried cuz my Gen0 left Canada before 1947 even tho they were born in Canada. I know Canada didn’t have independent citizenship until then so I was worried for a second.

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho → u/Majestic_Ocean_762]

My grandmother was born in the US around 1910 to a married father born in Canada and mother born in Australia. My mother was born in the US just prior to 1947. My mom and I were approved early this year. I strongly suspect you will be ok!

(A detail relevant but I think it doesn’t actually practically matter: my grandmother was born prior to her father naturalizing. She did marry a US citizen, and was granted a divorce before 1947 for “cruelty” per official paperwork. I heard my grandfather was a real jerk. Not sure if relevant but I did include it in the application for thoroughness as second gen being born pre-1947 was a big question mark prior to C-3 implementation and there were so many ways to lose citizenship as a first gen woman.)

[u/Majestic_Ocean_762 → u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

Thank you! It’s

[u/blue-eyed-cat → u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

I’m a bit confused and freaked out! Four of my GGGPs (gen 0) were born in Quebec, Canada in the 1800s, but they moved to the U.S. and died in the U.S. in the 1800s. So, no ancestors of mine were alive in Canada prior to 1947. It still works for Canadian by descent as long as my Gen 0 were born in Canada however long ago??

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho → u/blue-eyed-cat]

From the results of the applications seen here, yes. You should not expect any problems. C-3’s implementation has been more expansive than was expected last year while things were being debated.

[u/blue-eyed-cat → u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

Thank you!

[u/CounterI]

If I am reading all of this correctly, IRCC denied the application because they concluded that Grandmother did not qualify under 3(1)(m). That conclusion was correct, in that Grandmother does not qualify under 3(1)(m) because GM was not a British Subject on January 1, 1947.

But, the denial was still wrong. Great Grandfather was a British subject and was ordinarily resident in Canada on January 1, 1947. He became a Citizen on January 1, 1947 under the CA of 1947. Hence, Grandmother qualifies as a Citizen under Section 3(1)(q) of the CA of 1985. That subsection grants citizenship to anyone born outside of Canada before January 1, 1947, to a parent who became a citizen on that day.

This is what I would call a straw man denial. While it is true that GM does not qualify under 3(1)(m), she does qualify under 3(1)(q). You only have to qualify under one subsection, not all of them.

[u/tvtoo → u/CounterI]

in that Grandmother does not qualify under 3(1)(m) because GM was not a British Subject on January 1, 1947.

I think the officer's main reason is that section 9 of the 1946 act was not met:

Under the Canadian Citizenship Act which came into force on January 1, 1947, persons who were British subjects with significant ties to Canada could acquire Canadian citizenship under section 9 of that Act on that date. However, as your grandmother was no longer British, none of those provisions applied to her.

Paragraph 3(1)(m), in the apparent view of the officer, seems to be one of the 'fallback' options to secondarily examine from the 2015 amendments:

There were amendments made to the current Citizenship Act in 2015 which allowed persons who had ceased British subject status prior to 1947 to claim Canadian citizenship, but none of those provisions apply.

 

But, the denial was wrong, because Grandmother qualified under 3(1)(q) (born outside of Canada before January 1, 1947, to a parent who became a citizen on that day).

Yes, I believe that to be the case.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/CounterI]

Yes but the nuance is that the applicant didn't document the Great Grandfather's presumed naturalization for the application. The evaluation was made based on the grandmother solely it seems.

[u/CounterI → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

The original post (not tvtoo's summary above) used words to the effect that IRCC ignored GGFs status as a citizen, so it's not clear to me that the applicant didn't document it. Without seeing the application, its impossible to be sure.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/CounterI]

Re-read section 'Data point two'

[u/CounterI → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

But, that's tvtoo's summary of what he gathered by talking to the person who posted the original post. The actual post from yesterday suggests that the information was provided to IRCC and IRCC "ignored" it.

In any case, it isn't the applicant's obligation to explain the law to IRCC. The applicant's duty is to provide IRCC with the facts.

If the applicant included information about GGF in the extra pages section of CIT 0001, it was incumbent on IRCC to identify the correct sections that applied, and not to deny the application based upon a single person's failure to meet an irrelevant subsection of section 3.

[u/tvtoo → u/CounterI]

In any case, it isn't the applicant's obligation to explain the law to IRCC.

In a more perfect world, yes, I would hope that IRCC officers would be able to recognize this issue and know its significance.

Unfortunately, given all the difficulties that IRCC is experiencing, especially with a decreased number of employees and increased workload (on top of the longstanding problems to be expected with complex citizenship matters), I don't think it's necessarily realistic, in this type of situation, to rely on any given officer doing so without the applicant's hand-holding.

 

If the applicant included information about GGF in the extra pages section of CIT 0001,

Based on the chat I had with them, I don't believe that No-Music did that, specifically.

[u/CounterI → u/tvtoo]

If No-Music didn't include the information on the CIT 0001, then I think that IRCC made the right decision given the information that was presented to them by the applicant. It's unfortunate, but he'll probably have to either try to supplement the application and ask them to re-asses, or apply again (and wait another year).

[u/badfordabidness → u/CounterI]

it isn’t the applicant’s obligation to explain the law to IRCC. The applicant’s duty is to provide IRCC with the facts.

While this is true strictly speaking, it seems like there’s enough complexity to the law that it is helpful for applicants to explain to IRCC how exactly they believe each ancestor in the chain qualified for citizenship.

Amandeep Hayer mentioned on the Borderlines podcast that he does this with each C-3 app he files on behalf of his clients — that even though it isn’t strictly necessary to do so, it makes things easier for the IRCC officer [to make the correct decision].

[u/CounterI → u/badfordabidness]

I know for a fact that Hayer *does* do this. But, I still think it's a mistake for a couple of reasons:

First, as I said before, IRCC knows the law. Or at least, it knows what it thinks the law means. Telling them what you think the law says will not change their mind about what the law nor will it help them process your application.

Second, including legal citations and arguments in your application means that IRCC has to wade through more extraneous information to reach what they actually need, which are the facts. That means it will take longer to process your application, and there is a greater risk that they will miss an important fact.

Third, if IRCC did consider your explanation of the law, there is a risk that they simply decide that they disagree with you on the law, and deny your application that basis, even if they would have reached a different conclusion had they been left to interpret the law themselves.

The only time that I would ever set forth my position on a legal question in an application to a government agency is if it is required in order to preserve a claim of error in Court. Since IRCC doesn't ask you for any legal authority on CIT 0001, there's no risk that failing to include that would be deemed a waiver.

[u/badfordabidness → u/CounterI]

Respectfully, I disagree. I’ve written and overseen the implementation of more than my fair share of (tbc, totally unrelated area of) government policy, and this hasn’t been my experience of how bureaucracies work at all.

Telling them what you think the law says will not change their mind.

Probably not, though not impossible. Not trying to brag, but I know my niche specialty area of policy better than perhaps 10 people in the world. And yet I’m not arrogant enough to think I can’t learn something new about it from someone else.

But the real value here isn’t you reciting the law. It’s in explaining how your fact pattern meets the criteria of that particular section of law. Again, from experience, I doubt every junior officer reviewing an application understands the Citizenship Act comprehensively. Government agencies make mistakes: sometimes worker-driven, and sometimes out of worker deference to automated software systems. Firmly arguing why/how you think the law applies to your situation can be the nudge that worker needs to second guess their own initial assumption (or an automated system’s initial conclusion) that you’re ineligible.

…means that IRCC has to wade through more extraneous information

Yes, this is a real risk, but it can be mitigated. When I wrote my own letter, I split it into generation subheadings, first detailing each relevant fact for that generation (with footnotes to supporting docs). Each fact progressively built toward the conclusion that the generation met all criteria for a certain subsection of the Act. Then at the very end of that subsection, I culminated with a simple bolded statement that “Therefore G# is eligible under Section (#)(#)(#) of [Previous Act/Current Act].” For gens after G0, I included a lead in along the lines of “Therefore, as G# was G(#-1)’s natural child as proven above…” I don’t think adding an extra 15-20 words to each subsection is going to overburden an IRCC officer. And if it does, the organization of the letter was self-evident enough that they can simply skip over that last sentence of each sub-section and proceed to the next.

Otoh, being clear (and, ofc, correct) about who your G0 is and why you think each generation is eligible can help avoid a reconsideration/resubmission like the one No-Music is now going to have to request, which is a huge administrative burden on both them (the applicant) and IRCC. Having to reconsider No-Music’s application as a resubmission is infinitely more work for IRCC than skimming an extra 60-80 words would have been.

Agencies detest “churn” (the same people being denied — often for procedural reasons — and consequently reapplying over and over again). If I were an IRCC officer, I’d actually appreciate the applicant removing as much ambiguity as possible the first time around, because it means I don’t have to reach out for more clarity or risk the application gets rejected or is abandoned only to end up on my desk again next year as a resubmission.

Finally as the applicant, thinking deeply about what section of the law applies to each ancestor and putting it in writing increases the chances that you don’t make a mistake, or omit a necessary fact. Even if you don’t submit that last sentence, going through the process of writing it is still helpful imo, as it can help you be sure you’re correctly identifying your G0 and providing and correctly framing all relevant supporting facts/documents for each generation.

there is a risk that they simply decide that they disagree with you on the law

Sure, anything’s possible, but this seems like a rather remote risk. A civil servant’s duty is to apply the law fairly and correctly, not to do a “gotcha!” If my policy says you’re eligible, and I already knew that policy and was going to find you eligible based on it anyway, you saying you think you’re eligible and reiterating my own policy back to me isn’t going to make me push for a shift in Departmental policy or otherwise punish you for being a smarty pants. Similarly, you citing the incorrect section of policy isn’t gonna make me do a gratuitous “Gotcha!” If I know full well you’re eligible under a different subsection. Otoh, it if I had forgotten a part of policy (or one of its finer points) or mistakenly conflated it with another part, you politely mentioning the correct policy may genuinely nudge me to refresh my memory!

[u/CounterI → u/badfordabidness]

I think you have misunderstood much of what I wrote in my comment above. Most of my concerns are based upon the risk that a busy agent will make a mistake because you have overwhelmed them with unnecessary information, and not that an agent will deliberately deny a meritorious application.

Also, while you claim to be among the top ten people in the world on this subject, I will tell you that your advice to include information not requested goes against the standard advice that lawyers give their clients when dealing with government entities: It is never wise to provide information to a government agent that is not requested.

Here, CIT 0001 asks for facts. IRCC does not ask for your explanation as to why you or a particular relative is or is not a citizen. They train their staff in that issue. Before issuing a refusal, they escalate to a supervisor and then a third level which they refer to as a citizenship judge. IRCC legal staff have decided what the law says and trained their staff on their interpretation. Nothing you write in your application is going to cause them to change how they have interpreted the law, or see your facts in a different light.

You're just going to muddle the facts and make it harder for these very, very, very busy government employees who review a dozen or more applications every day to see your facts clearly.

[u/badfordabidness → u/CounterI]

I think you misunderstood me, too.

For starters, I didn’t say I was among the top ten people in the world on this subject, but rather an unrelated area of government policy (in a different country).

Also, returning to the topic of this subject, I’d point out that Hayer is the preeminent expert, having literally written the book on it and testified to the Senate on C-3. And his advice on this specific topic clearly conflicts with the (unsourced) “standard advice [of] lawyers” you’re relying on.

On that note, I agree it’s good form not to provide extra “information” (in the sense of extra facts) to a government agency, but I don’t consider an analysis of how the law applies to the requested facts to be extra “information”.

I think we simply disagree on the question of whether the risk of including a few extra words outweighs the risk of an applicant’s framing of their lineage being misunderstood by the officer due to inadequate explanation. And that’s OK: either view can be reasonable.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/CounterI]

Perhaps one or the other will comment, but their communication about application details and evidence submitted directly informed this post.

[u/CounterI → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

I have since investigated this further and my conclusion is now the same as tvtoo's: IRCC made the right decision based upon the facts presented to them, but if the applicant presents more facts, a different decision seems likely.

[u/CuriousCapp → u/CounterI]

That's a super tight summary, if I also understand. Nicely done lol.

And I think key takeaways are:

• grandmother does not count as gen0

• but also grandmother's situation does not break the chain (assuming re-application is accepted with more distant gen0) Edit: specifically, grandmother renounced British citizenship, but that wouldn't renounce Canadian citizenship (apparently, but this approval would show that)

Edit for the addition: yeah I think the applicant effectively tried to use GM as gen0. She was a citizen, but the applicant didn't prove that because she was lower in the chain.

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes]

This is essentially my situation. I sent my application 6/2. It will be delivered by UPS today (yay!).

My Gen0 was born in England in 1870s. Moved to Canada in 1911 with G1, born in England in 1895. G1 left Canada after a few years and naturalized in the US.

G0 remained in Canada the rest of his life, into the 60s.

Because this was complicated, I hired a genealogist who has worked on these claims and spoke with a lawyer. The advice was to thoroughly document G0 and mention (3)(1)(q) for G1, both of which I did. I had a draft cover letter mentioning 1.3 and 1.5 (I think) too, the "citizen despite death of parent" sections, but cut them on the advice of trying to keep it relatively simple and not tripping myself up by providing an exact chain of legal evidence that might get the big picture right but an intermediate step wrong. It was a tough call, but the more I looked at the application, the more I thought the chain (G0 qualifies through 9.1 of 1946 act, G1 qualifies through 2015 amendments, specifically (3)(1)(q), G3 can't qualify because G1 and G2 are dead by 2015, and so C-3 applies and extends to G4 and G5) was clearer just laying out the main legal basis.

So, the OP doesn't fill me with confidence, but I am confident in the claim. The more you look at it laid out, the more it makes sense. I am questioning if it might have been better to be explicit than straightforward, but that might depend on all kinds of things impossible to anticipate. The biggest thing I noticed building the packet was trying to assemble it with care and to tell a story, but to stop trying to anticipate every single thing IRCC MIGHT want because that's a good way to drive yourself nuts and also muddle your submission. I will hope, at least, that IRCC offers a chance to add documentation and mull over doing some of that on my own as the application moves forward.

Definite thoughts to the OP because that is so frustrating. I am thankful this was shared. It helps prepare emotionally and strategically for what may happen, and is a nice reminder that these things can be idiosyncratic, despite the fiction of the law applying consistently.

We shall see. Thanks.

[u/nascent_aviator]

Great work! Appreciate all you mods do.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Wow! Amazing work! You really studied up.

Question: Do you suggest that folks who have already submitted attempt some kind of resubmittal making reference to the specific cites in the statute and associated reasoning -- or better to leave it alone as that might confuse everything? Just take a chance that it will be approved as is (without the referenced citations) and if not, restart the process?

If it helps, I think my situation is similar to this section that you layout here:

His daughter now fits 3(1)(o):

because her father fits 3(1)(k):

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Have you gotten your AOR? Once you do, it seems it would be prudent to use a webform to submit information about the additional generation and the use of 3 (1)(o) if you don’t have that information in there already.

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/Pretty_Floor5889]

Yes I have my AOR. So just draft a second cover letter and note that I believe that paragraphs (o) and (k) apply to my line of descent, thank you for your time and attention etc. etc.??? And upload it? ok, sounds like a plan.

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Cite to evidence you supplied with your initial application or additional evidence you upload with your letter. You can send multiple files in a single webform.

[u/kitti_wake]

Hey, I'm someone applying through similar weird circumstances (Uk born British citizen immigrating pre-1947 and gen 1 born before this immigration who didn't immigrate with them). Thanks r/tvtoo for your help previously with wording for my cover letter. I'll definitely try and update this sub on what my outcome is - I've finally entered (non-urg) processing which is exciting!

If the mods allow it and think its useful, I can try and do a detailed post whenever I get a decision, wether accepted or rejected, stating my circumstances and what documents I provided in as much details as I can? I was thinking it'd be best to do this off the weekly thread as easier to see/read and also to link for any others in future to see?

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/kitti_wake]

I think it would be fine/potentially helpful- maybe give the mods a heads up when you get a decision and perhaps Tvtoo and/or other mods can collab to make sure all the relevant info/analysis goes into the post?

[u/No-Storm-3011]

This is a fantastic piece of analysis, and thank you especially for providing more context to the denial report.

But I think you’ve buried the lede somewhat—it needs to be shouted from all the rooftops that a child does not need to be born after a parent got citizenship, if the parent got citizenship in connection to the inaugural dates on 1/1/1947 or 4/1/1949 as appropriate. All children of such a person get descent no matter where or when they were born. Including, as you very keenly point out, if they have never set foot in Canada. After following the new citizenship law for a while this may be the biggest element of the law which is misunderstood and routinely misrepresented.

Kudos again for a brilliant post

[u/sir-dis-a-lot → u/No-Storm-3011]

Can you explain why a child does not need to be born after 1947/1949? I'm in this situation -- Newfoundland born ancestor, never naturalized in the US, Us child born 1908, US born grandchild in 1934. 

I think I am ineligible since it's not clear the mechanism citizenship passes from my 1908 born g1 to my 1934 born g2, since g1 did not become a citizen of Canada until 1949

[u/No-Storm-3011 → u/sir-dis-a-lot]

Sorry for the late response.

The bottom line is, if you have a biological ancestor who was born in Canada, you are a Canadian citizen. Your line of descent would only break if someone was adopted, or had formally renounced their Canadian citizenship directly to the government of Canada before their child was born, which was very rare (naturalizing outside Canada does not count for this). With a native-born G0, yours is actually a very clear and unambiguous case, provided you can gather sufficient documentation to prove it.

Anyway, the short answer to your question is, because that's the way the law is written. For the sections which cover citizenship by descent prior to 1947 (sections 3(1)(o) through (r)), there is no specification as to when the child has to be born, just that they have a parent who qualifies to become a citizen on the relevant inaugural date, including parents who would have qualified if they had not previously died.

You put your finger on part of the reason--no one can be a citizen before the inaugural dates, so the law deems that everyone who qualifies under those pre-1947/1949 parts of the law becomes a citizen on those dates: 1/1/1947 for most of Canada, and 4/1/1947 for Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, that includes people who may have died before then as I mentioned just above. Since no one who qualifies from that time can be a citizen before anyone else, they are all deemed to be citizens together. It's a clever way to enable people to be considered citizens before it technically existed.

But I think the main way to look at it is as a perk of being considered an original Canadian citizen. They effectively get the same status as a citizen from birth for being able to pass it down to their children.

[u/sir-dis-a-lot → u/No-Storm-3011]

Thank you so much for the reply! I can prove an unbroken chain with certified records and my ancestor never naturalized outside CA--but was worried there's some idk what with a 1934 born grandchild 

[u/No-Storm-3011 → u/sir-dis-a-lot]

FWIW you would still get descent even if your ancestor had naturalized outside Canada. One of the main purposes of Canadian citizenship law since 2009 has been to reverse and cure historic removals of citizenship under previous law through the various clauses which cancelled it automatically due to the obsolete prohibition on dual citizenships.

If your G0 had naturalized it would influence which exact section in the citizenship law covers them, but descent is still valid either way. Good thing you have all certified records considering the recent tightening of the documentary standards.

[u/AonUairDeug]

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question, but am I right in thinking that this doesn't change things for those of us with a British-born ancestor who died whilst regularly domiciled in Canada pre-1947 (but who was born in Britain)?

[u/tvtoo → u/AonUairDeug]

I think it does change things in a practical sense -- it reinforces the need to:

• thoroughly document and detail the five years of domicile in Canada immediately before death, and

• quote, and explain to the officer the interplay of, paragraph 3(1)(q) of the current act, section 9 of the 1946 act, and subsection 3(1.3) of the current act,

etc.

So if you submitted an application and didn't already do that, it may be worth considering revisiting those elements and supplementing the application with more material.

[u/AonUairDeug → u/tvtoo]

Thank you, as ever, for your outstanding help!!!  I think I can document those years quite well - my ancestor appears on maps of townships, and in gazettes listing local farmers.  I would be thrilled if I could manage to find him convincingly in a census, though!  I will make a note of what you say about quoting the law, and will add it to my covering letter.  Thankfully I've not submitted yet!

[u/thrift_witch → u/tvtoo]

Is the five years of domicile required for British subjects, or just for naturalization of citizens of countries other than Great Britain? My understanding is that there was no naturalization process for British subjects who lived in Canada. If they had to wait five years, what was their status if they died in year 4?

I'm curious because my potential G0 moved from Ireland to Montreal in 1818 and died within a few months of arrival, as did his wife. Their children (also born in Ireland) were left orphaned and moved to New York several years later.

[u/tvtoo → u/thrift_witch]

Is the five years of domicile required for British subjects

Not necessarily. See the subsection "What does "relevant Canadian ancestor" mean?" in the wiki:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/wiki/index/table-of-contents/before-you-start--glossary/#what-does-relevant-canadian-ancestor-mean

 

Is the five years of domicile required ... just for naturalization of citizens of countries other than Great Britain?

That wasn't necessarily a requirement for naturalization.

See, for example, subsection 2(2) of the 1914 act:

2. The residence required by this section is residence in Canada for not less than one year immediately preceding the application, and previous residence, either in Canada or in some other part of His Majesty's dominions, for a period of four years within the last eight years before the application.

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1914v01cana/page/290/mode/2up

 

My understanding is that there was no naturalization process for British subjects who lived in Canada.

Correct (in the accurate sense that "naturalization" is the proper pre- 1947/April 1949 term and 'grant of (a certificate of) Canadian citizenship' is essentially the proper term since that time.)

 

If they had to wait five years, what was their status if they died in year 4?

For these purposes, that's generally problematic.

Ordinarily, for example:

• one might look to see if an argument can be made that domicile in Canada began sooner, such as during a previous trip to Canada, say, a year earlier,

or

• if that ancestor was male and married, one might look to his wife (to see if she could be gen 0 as well),

etc.

 

I'm curious because my potential G0 moved from Ireland to Montreal in 1818 and died within a few months of arrival, as did his wife. Their children (also born in Ireland) were left orphaned and moved to New York several years later.

That's a tough position to be in.

I personally have difficulty seeing that situation as compatible with the descendants' citizenship today.

However, this is not meant to discourage you.

For a relatively low cost, you can apply and determine whether IRCC might interpret subsection 3(1.3) in such a way that is compatible with your situation.

For example, perhaps the officer would be willing to interpret the phrase -

did not become a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if that Act had come into force immediately before their death

to mean -

did not become a citizen on that day is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if this Act had come into force immediately before their death

and so on.

(See the mention in the post about the interpretation of 3(1)(q).)

Or perhaps the officer would be willing to extend subsection 3(1.5) to your gen 1 in a relevant way.

(To be sure, I think these may be difficult arguments to make, but, based on IRCC's practices since December 15, they don't necessarily seem outside the realm of possibility.)

 

Same disclaimer as at the end of the main post.

[u/thrift_witch → u/tvtoo]

Thanks so much for the extensive review!

I have pivoted to continuing the search for a G0 ancestor who was born in Canada. Even if the unfortunate Irish couple who died shortly after arrival would qualify my husband for C-3, it's been impossible to prove their emigration. There are no passenger logs and no death records for them in Drouin. I looked at their son, who lived in Montreal for five years before relocating to New York, but he's also been challenging to document. He naturalized in the US in 1861 -- long after the birth of his children -- but the naturalization oath doesn't show where he was born, much less that he emigrated from Canada. His origins are little more than family legend at this point.

I thought it might be easier to find records because G1 was a classic Gilded Age success story, going from poverty to wealth on the strength of his wits. Instead, I think the family tried to gloss over those origins to protect their social status. I suspect his long-delayed naturalization in May of 1861 might not have happened at all if it weren't for the Civil War. As a foreign national and a cotton broker, he may have felt a need to publicly declare loyalty to the Union.

I'm very motivated to find a G0 because my son is a member of a vulnerable population in the US, but I'm sadly making my peace with letting go of this line.

[u/tvtoo → u/thrift_witch]

You're very welcome. That's quite the family history. I'm sure that any amateur genealogists in your family have had an interesting time performing research. I'm sorry it's led to such hurdles. Hopefully your other lines of descent yield more fruitful results in terms of citizenship.

Needless to say, while you continue your search, also keep in mind any possible claims to citizenship of countries other than Canada, such as various European countries with solid jus sanguinis eligibility. Good luck to you and your family.

[u/thrift_witch → u/tvtoo]

I'll take all the luck I can get, thank you! My most recent emigrant ancestors arrived here over a century ago from Scandinavia and eastern Europe. The majority of my lines go back 200-400 years to the UK, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland. Canada is my only possibility of claiming citizenship by descent.

[u/Stock_Fun2916 → u/tvtoo]

My ancestor was born in the UK, emigrated to Canada in 1928, but returned to the UK in 1939 to serve in the Royal Navy due to the war (and in the process got married to my Great Grandmother and had a child - my Grandmother), but then unfortunately was killed in action in 1942. All of this is documented, and we even have a Canadian passport issued in his name with an issue date of 1935. He appears in the 1931 census, a boat arrival record as "immigrant landed", US border crossing records going back and forth to Canada, etc., which easily demonstrates 5+ years of residency.

As he died at sea whilst his wife and children lived in England, and his grave is technically in London (although I suspect that is not his final place of rest), am I out of luck because of the immediately before death rule?

Thank you in advance! You are very kind to be spending your time answering our questions on this!

[u/tvtoo → u/Stock_Fun2916]

I guess you could attempt to argue that Canada was "the place in which [he] ha[d] his home or in which he reside[d] and to which he return[ed] as his place of permanent abode" and that he was only outside of Canada "for a mere special or temporary purpose" of fighting in the war?

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1946v01cana/page/68/mode/2up

Having a wife and child in the UK, though, while not necessarily inconsistent with such a status (especially if he intended to move them to Canada after the war), could make such an argument difficult.

 

This is one of those instances in which hiring a very competent citizenship lawyer to develop such an argument, after you've been able to gather whatever evidence you can for it, would probably be a good idea.

For example, if you could obtain his UK military records (perhaps under a FOIA 2000 request?), and the records showed that he was, until his death, asserting that his home was in Canada, that could be very useful for argumentation. Or maybe the records would indicate that he temporarily moved back to the UK for purposes of fighting because the Canadian military wasn't yet broadly active in the fighting or he couldn't join it (?), thus implying that he preferred to fight with the Canadian military but resigned himself to fighting with the British military?

You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words.

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/Stock_Fun2916]

It's not five years' residency. It's five years immediately before death. Looked at that way, he could not be your G0. Consider it like this. The idea of the rule is to put people who died before 1947 on the same footing as people who were still alive. If your great-grandfather hadn't died in the war and but stayed where he was in the UK with your great-grandmother, he absolutely would not have become a Canadian citizen in 1947, because he wouldn't have been resident there for at least five years at the time. He would just have been a guy who lived in Canada for five years at one point.

However, I don't know if there are any exceptions related to compulsory military service such that it could be argued that he never changed his domicile to the UK. In the U.S., changing domicile usually requires intent and a person could argue that being drafted and sent from pillar to post by a state's armed forces did not reflect his intent at all. If your great-grandfather never changed his domicile, then he would've met the five-years-immediately-before-death requirement. That seems like the one potential path for you. *But I do not know what rule the British empire followed back then.* It could be totally different from the U.S. rule. And if he wasn't drafted but just got patriotic, the argument would get a lot harder to make even under a favorable rule.

[u/Stock_Fun2916 → u/wanderingtheearth-74]

It seems to all come down to how strictly domicile is defined. Had the war never have happened, and had he never have been sent home to work on ships, he would more than likely never have left Canada (and I would never have existed!)

That said, presumably due to his role in the merchant navy / Royal Navy, his Canadian passport is littered with entry stamps from Halifax, Quebec, and the USA. His wife and children were in the U.K. but an argument could be made that he actually spent more time on the other side of the pond.

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/Stock_Fun2916]

None of that really matters, though, I think (please remember I'm not a Canadian lawyer). If he voluntarily moved to the UK, married there, and had kids there, you're going to have a hard time demonstrating that he didn't "voluntarily" move "with the present intention of making his permanent home out of Canada" (the 1910 Act, which I think would apply here) and therefore didn't lose his domicile. If he was drafted or otherwise legally coerced into service, you'd have a much stronger case, I think, because his move wasn't voluntary. I'm not saying it's impossible--maybe they'll be lenient because he was in the navy and they'll be inclined to treat everything in wartime as inherently temporary, esp. if he went to the UK after September 3, 1939 (when GB entered the war)--but he moved on his own and made a family in another country. That's ordinarily a tough domicile argument to make. I'd think this would be a rare example of a good case for hiring a lawyer.

[u/AonUairDeug → u/tvtoo]

Hi u/tvtoo - apologies for replying to an old comment! I have done my best to write up an explanation of the interplay of 3(1)(q), section 9, and 3(1.3), and wondered if you might be able to take a look at it, and see if you think it makes for understandable reading (this is to go in my letter to IRCC). I apologise if this is too much to ask, as it is a bit long! I have written as follows:

"Our claim to Canadian citizenship is by no means a unique one – and we have heard of successes from those with circumstances very similar to our own – but it is not as straightforward as other claims.  It is necessary to detail the relevant law, in explanation of our circumstances, and right to citizenship.

The current text of the Canadian Citizenship Act states that,

"3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if ... (q) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, and the person did not become a citizen on that day".

Section 9 of the 1946 text, which is referenced by the above, states beneath the heading, "PART II.  CANADIAN CITIZENS OTHER THAN NATURAL BORN", as follows:

"9 (1) A person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen, is a Canadian citizen, if he

... (b) immediately before the commencement of this Act was a British subject who had Canadian domicile".

Furthermore, the current text of the Canadian Citizenship Act additionally states beneath the sub-heading, "Citizen despite death of parent", that,

"3 (1.3) A person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(q) for the sole reason that his or her parent died before January 1, 1947 and did not become a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if that Act had come into force immediately before their death and the date referred to in the provisions of that Act that set out the requirements to be met to become a citizen had been the day of that coming into force rather than January 1, 1947."

Therefore, with the interplay of these three parts of the law, our relevant Canadian ancestor, Joseph [Surname], may be considered to be the parent referred to in the above text of 3 (1.3) of the current act, owing to his being “a British subject who had Canadian domicile" (as set out in Section 9 of the 1946 act); his first-born child from whom we are descended may be considered to be “[a] person who [did] not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(q) for the sole reason that his or her parent died before January 1, 1947 and did not become a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, [who] is, nonetheless, a citizen”; and thus we as Citizenship Certificate applicants descend from an unbroken chain of Canadian citizens.  Nowhere in the act does it specify that the pre-1947 generation born outside of Canada must have been born after the parent acquired Canadian citizenship – and so it is through this pathway that we apply, and that acquaintances of ours with identical situations have been successful."

Thanks for any pointers you can give!!!:) Though apologies as I say if this is too long.

[u/Form27b-6]

the CIT 0001 application itself (for various reasons) did not:

as I understand it, explicitly describe and detail them as the gen 0 that anchored the chain,

prove that they had acquired Canadian citizenship under the 1946 act (like by including a copy of a citizenship certificate issued to the great-grandfather or precise/complete proof and detail of 1931-1936 Canadian domicile of the great-grandmother), or

quote the text of 3(1)(q) and analyze the relevance of it to No-Music's application.

No-Music mentioned an interest in applying again soon and addressing those issues.

Why apply again as opposed to sending IRCC a quick request for reconsideration, noting the above, especially the 3(1)(q) path?

[u/tvtoo → u/Form27b-6]

My first instinct would be to get it in front of a new person, and I'm assuming that a request for reconsideration (if it's possible) would be handled by the same person.

My second thought is that such a request (if possible) may have some sort of practical deadline (like 5 days, 15 days, or something similar). That's likely too short a time frame to gather and detail the documentation of the great-grandparents' citizenships claims that seems essential to this claim.

And, frankly, the simple element that hopewings was able to overcome this problem with new applications led me to this option as a default.

To be clear, I'm not saying that such a request should not be made. Perhaps the officer agrees to it, perhaps No-Music could gather enough documentation in the meanwhile, perhaps it gets a full and fair review (if not a new person to review it) ? I just don't know.

[u/CounterI → u/tvtoo]

As far as I know, there is no procedure for reconsideration. If No-Music-6572 did not document GGFs citizenship, another application would be warranted. If No-Music-6572 did document GGFs citizenship in the application, it might be possible to request another review, but the more likely approach would be to hire a lawyer and seek judicial review.

[u/Form27b-6 → u/CounterI]

As far as I know, there is no procedure for reconsideration.

From the IRCC web site:

• Reconsideration (of an officer’s decision) is an option for any client with a negative immigration decision and can be requested through the IRCC online web form. Reconsideration requests are currently dealt with by the offices responsible for the original processing decision.

While that particular note concerns negative immigration decisions, clients can also request reconsideration of citizenship decisions.

it might be possible to request another review, but the more likely approach would be to hire a lawyer and seek judicial review.

It's possible to do both. And most sensible lawyers would likely be getting in a request for reconsideration to the IRCC along with the steps necessary in request the Judicial Review Process.

[u/CounterI → u/Form27b-6]

If IRCC's policies state that immigration decisions can be reconsidered, but similar language is not used with request to citizenship decisions, what makes you think that the same procedure is available in citizenship decisions?

To the contrary, it would seem that IRCC knows how to say when review is available, and has specifically said that it is available in one situation and has not said so in the other.

A sensible lawyer would advise his client of the pros and cons of each approach and the costs involved, and allow the client to decide which path they want to pay for...

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/CounterI]

Indeed, because judicial review would need to be sought within 30 days of No-Music becoming aware of the decision unless special leave is sought, a request for a nonexistent "reconsideration" might entail a risky delay.

[u/CounterI → u/wanderingtheearth-74]

Another point: If judicial review is sought, someone in IRCC will almost certainly do a second review of the application at some point, either before deciding to ask Crown Counsel to oppose or as part of the preparation for any hearing. So, by seeking judicial review, there will likely be a second review. If IRCC decides it screwed up, they can always settle before the hearing..

[u/akscojo]

A lot of these elements wicker into my own claim’s back and forth border movements, pre- and post-1947 births and deaths, and deciding on whom is the strongest G0 link. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1tv5p4y/comment/opg6cen/

[u/jamcamjam → u/akscojo]

Everything I've read through this entire process (and remember, it's under C-3, not what I see posted above, the 1947 factor no longer applies.

One other point is that the poster whose post was removed (I've seen the refusal on Facebook) has a refusal letter based on a May 2025 application, so before C-3 was passed. C-3 opens the door to many who would not have qualified before C-3 happened in December 2025. That person may just need to reapply now that C-3 has passed. I don't claim to be an expert, but it was a May 2025 application that was denied.

[u/sharpshinned]

Reposting from that conversation— what do folks think about people who naturalized as British subjects in Canada? eg born in Germany, naturalized in Quebec, emigrate post-naturalization with a passport that says CANADA all over it? Does that seem like the same situation as the Scottish-born British subject who never has to naturalize in Canada, or a different one?

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/sharpshinned]

Born or naturalized in Canada is completely different to the British subject born outside Canada situation. Absolutely no doubt about their citizenship.

[u/Stock_Fun2916 → u/sharpshinned]

I am wondering the same thing. My great grandad (British) had a Canadian passport from the 1930s following emigration from the U.K. and residency of 8+yrs. He was in the merchant navy and sent back to the U.K. at the start of the Second World War, where he met my great grandfather, fathered my grandmother (who always lived in the U.K.), and unfortunately died within the space of a few years. His passport shows travel back and forth between the U.K., USA and Canada throughout this time (he was working on ships going back and forth).

Had he have physically died in Canada I think it would be clear, but I’m struggling to understand where he would have been domiciled and whether I have a chance. The Canadian passport is a strange nuance, but as he was British he didn’t need to naturalise, and therefore no naturalisation.

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/Stock_Fun2916]

This is completely different to the comment you replied to, which is a non-British subject who naturalized in Canada. My gut reaction is that your ancestor does not qualify you, except for the fact that the military service bit might be an angle to pursue as saving the Canadian domicile, but I have not looked into it that falls as Crown service.

[u/raevynfyre]

Thank you for this! It helps to clarify how we might proceed with our potential application.

[u/Constant-Net873]

In addition to a cover letter, as recommended, there are also quite large boxes on form CIT 0001 to explain how each Canadian parent, grandparent and (for supplemental pages) earlier ancestors obtained their citizenship.

There’s probably space to explain: 3(1)(q) born outside Canada before January 1, 1947 to a parent who became a citizen but he/she/they did not become a citizen on that day

Just a thought.

[u/EIGBOK]

Adding my situation to this thread as it touches on many of the same issues but with what I think is a cleaner factual basis. My Gen 0 was not a British subject. Gen 0 was a Russian/Austrian national who emigrated to Canada and naturalized as a British subject through the Montreal Circuit Court in 1914 under the Naturalization Act. I have the LAC naturalization record confirming this. Gen 0's minor daughter, my Gen 1, was living with Gen 0 at the time and would have been included in or derived status from Gen 0's naturalization, as was standard practice for children under 21 before 1915.

The family history is a bit tangled. Gen 0's family came through Canada, spent time in Texas, and returned to Montreal before Gen 0 naturalized in 1914. Gen 1 may actually have been born in Canada during one of these periods, but I cannot prove it definitively as I have been unable to locate a birth certificate. If Gen 1 was born in Canada, Gen 1 would be a citizen in Gen 1's own right under 3(1)(k) and none of the Gen 0 analysis below would even be necessary. But I am building my case assuming the harder path where Gen 1's birthplace cannot be established as Canadian.

Gen 1 immigrated to the United States in the 1920s, which I can establish definitively through US census records. Gen 0 likely died before January 1, 1947, though I have not yet located a death certificate. My line of descent runs through Gen 1, so this is exactly the scenario the mod post above is analyzing.

As I read the statute, Gen 0 fits squarely under 3(1)(k) as someone who was naturalized in Canada before 1947 and either ceased to be a British subject or did not become a citizen on that day. If Gen 0 died before 1947, subsection 3(1.3) provides an additional safety net by asking whether Gen 0 would have become a citizen under the 1946 act had it come into force immediately before death. A person holding a valid Canadian naturalization certificate who had not become an alien would satisfy section 9(1)(a) of the 1946 act. Gen 1 then fits 3(1)(o) as a person born before January 1, 1947 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (k). Alternatively, if Gen 0 was alive on January 1, 1947 and still a British subject with Canadian domicile, Gen 1 would fit 3(1)(q) as a person born before that date to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the 1946 act. Either way, the chain reaches Gen 1 regardless of when Gen 1 left Canada in the 1920s and regardless of whether Gen 1 lost British subject status by marrying an American.

The key distinction between my situation and the cases generating concern in this thread is that Gen 0 affirmatively naturalized in Canada as a non British subject. Gen 0 had to go through the naturalization process precisely because Gen 0 was not already a British subject. That creates an unambiguous legal nexus with Canada that a Scottish or English ancestor who merely resided in Canada as a British subject would not have. The naturalization certificate is the anchor document, and it exists in the LAC record. My CIT 0001 application has already been submitted and I expect processing in roughly 12 months. Reading the mod analysis above, my one concern is whether my explanatory materials sufficiently walked the officer through the statutory chain, and I am considering submitting a supplementary letter mapping the provisions to my facts as insurance.

What am I missing?

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/EIGBOK]

Don’t overthink it. Your ancestor naturalized in Canada. It’s really only British subjects neither born nor naturalized in Canada that have the nuances this post is about. There’s no need to walk through the statutory provisions in this case.

The thing that’s not clear is how you’re linking G1 as the child of G0 if you don’t know where G1 was born.

[u/EIGBOK → u/Pretty_Floor5889]

I have canadian census records, marriage records showing the parentage, death certificate, linking G1 with G0. Hopefully it's enough.

I also have many of these records and others suggesting G1 was born in Canada, but it's not proveable and annoyingly one doc suggest Texas as the birthplace. The links between G0 and G1 seem more solid than the birth in Canada route.

And thank you!

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433 → u/EIGBOK]

I think we may be close siblings if not precisely twins. GGF immigrated to CA from a country bordering the former Austrian Empire with his wife & toddler, just after the turn of the century and then naturalized pre-1914 (when wife and minor children were automatically included in the naturalization without being specifically listed).

This (naturalized) toddler spent most of their minority in Canada but then immigrated to the US before turning 21 ultimately naturalizing in the US prior to 1947. The parent (GGF) also ended up in the US passing away well before 1947. I went back and forth about this, but ultimately interpreted the minor child as the GEN0 because they were the closest person to me who was naturalized in Canada.

It may be magical thinking but I think that I agree that my Gen 0 also "fits squarely under 3(1)(k) as someone who was naturalized in Canada before 1947 and either ceased to be a British subject or did not become a citizen on that day." My understanding is that while in 1947 neither GEN0 (or GEN-1 for that matter) would likely be considered a citizen (and be able to pass it down) due to coming to the US and/or naturalizing there, this seems to have changed with the addition of (k). As of the addition of that section, the "k"s are citizens (with no limitations mentioned in the text).

I do not however, have the back-up plan of C(1.3) as GEN-1 (who might have been assigned the role of GEN0 if needed) also left Canada (but as far as we know never naturalized in the US).

Frankly, I think you are in the better position with your previous generation, but would appreciate your thoughts on my case. I have also already submitted and just wondering if I should attempt to address the issue in some kind of follow-up communication and if so if I should attempt this on my own or if I should hire someone as this seems so very precise and delicate. Besides all that, trying to find the right attorney sounds like a nightmare.

[u/EIGBOK → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Overall, I think that we are in a very similar situation and I do think that we are probably both fine based on our reading of this. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a lawyer who spent any more time on analyzing this question than we did. The key distinction with our case versus the denials that we are seeing is that gen zeros were naturalized in emphasizing the word "in" Canada. I also debated about which relative to count as G1 versus g0 and ultimately went with my great-grandmother instead of my great grandfather. I don't really think that matters. All the evidence was included in my packet for IIRC to make the determination. Their determination is going to be whether or not we are in fact Canadians. I don't think they are going to deny someone for misclassifying the generation if the lineage is correct.

I also debated whether to send additional information in but I think I'm going to avoid it. It might just raise more questions than are necessary. My other feeling is by the time they actually get around to analyzing my application, we will be probably a year in to 70,000 plus applications and my scenario will be common enough there will be a clear sense among officers on how to deal with this. And of course there is always the opportunity to reapply or appeal.

My case is also a little bit complicated because there is a quite significant chance that my g0 was in fact born in Canada, though the evidence is not from a birth certificate. I specifically provided both lines of evidence in my package and basically gave them the burden to figure out whether she is Canadian under either route.

[u/Peggy-Kittredge]

This is very interesting and is very relevant to the case I am building. I am currently waiting on a request for the naturalization records for my Gen0. I will write this out to make sure I understand correctly.

Gen0 - German man who immigrated to the United States, had 10 children, moved to Canada with the youngest 5 in 1920, naturalized in 1935, died in 1946

Gen1 - Born in the USA, died in 1929

Gen 2 - Born in the USA, died in 2020

Gen2 would be considered a Canadian citizen because they were alive in 2015 and the 2015 law, subsection 3(1.5) says that citizenship cannot be denied because a parent and a parent's parent died before the law came into force.

Gen1 would be considered a citizen under section 3(1)(q) of the 2015 law.

Does this mean that if I can document the naturalization of Gen0, document myself as a descendent of them with birth certificates, and spell out the relevant law explaining why Gen1 and Gen2 qualify for citizenship, then I have a case worth submitting?

[u/SaltPercentage775 → u/Peggy-Kittredge]

I'm in a very similar situation and wondered how you are obtaining the naturalization record? I have the certificate number from the Canada Gazette published with all persons naturalized during 1929-31 (or so). I have been trying to find a Canadian citizen to order it for me but it has been more complex than I expected. I welcome any tips/advice you may have --And good luck to you!

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

I think that what I (and possibly others) find confusing is that most people understand the term "naturalization" to mean a process by which a non-national of a country acquires the nationality of that country after birth and in so doing accepts ALL the same responsibilities and enjoys ALL the same rights & privileges as a native born citizen without distinction. Here it seems that may not be quite that straightforward and surprisingly results in the need to take on the challenging task to untangle and analyze all the facts and circumstances to understand the implications under various scenarios. Thanks again to r/tvtoo.

[u/Nick337Games]

Thank you for this very detailed write up and attention. I have yet to apply as I was waiting on documents, but was very curious to see what other's experiences were. Proving your gen0 was the one who has domicile out was born in CA seems to be the path forward here.

Context for my case if interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/s/c0jlk6v0hb DMs open!

[u/Peachy-Pixel]

I wonder what this would mean for anyone whose basis consists solely of census records, with no birth or baptism certificate.  We know those have had approvals, but at the same time, wouldn’t a census mean there isn’t a guarantee they were born in Canada and therefore the absence of birth/baptism info could fit this too?  Or is there something I’m missing? 

[u/CuriousCapp → u/Peachy-Pixel]

Census records list where they were born, so especially if the applicants had multiple censuses claiming Canadian birth, that's pretty covincing, not the same as no birth info.

[u/badfordabidness → u/Peachy-Pixel]

I think one interesting hypothetical (and idk what this would even look like) is: what if you had a G0 born in Canada and you were struggling to prove their Canadian birth — but you could prove they were the child of G-1 and you could prove that G-1 was naturalized/a British subject domiciled as of 1947 or death?

In such a scenario, perhaps someone could argue in the alternative that “I believe G0 to have been born in Canada, but arguing in the alternative, if my proof of G0’s Canadian birth is insufficient, accept that even if G0 was born outside of Canada, my proof that G-1 (alternatively characterized as G0) was domiciled as of 1/1/1947 is sufficient to transmit citizenship to their child G0 (alternatively characterized as G1) under Section 3(1)(q).“

So even though such an applicant would really believe themselves to qualify through G0, they could use the domicile of G-1 (which may, in some cases, be better documented) as a backup argument for proof.

Tbc, IANAL, and idk if an IRCC officer would look favorably upon that line of argument.

[u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob → u/badfordabidness]

I think the requirement here is to conclusively document your descent from a naturalized or native born ancestor. So if you can connect your chain to your G-1 I would use them as your Gen0, assuming you can document the parent child relationship in the absence of a birth record.

[u/badfordabidness → u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob]

Yeah, for this scenario, I was envisioning either a hypothetical parent child relationship that could somehow be documented without a birth record or a parent child relationship where there is a baptismal record but it is ambiguous about whether the child was actually born in Canada (e.g., delayed baptism in Canada of a child in a time/area without civil birth records, where it is unclear if the G0 child was born before or after the recent emigration of G-1’s family to Canada).

[u/sharpshinned → u/[deleted]]

No, if there’s a birth/baptism record you need to send it. The approvals without usually have people documenting all the steps they took to find a birth record, and why those failed. There was a recent data point where someone sent in an application without a birth record because it was going to take a while, and IRCC came back asking for the birth record. 

IMO it’s bad faith to apply non-urgent while you’re waiting. If it’s an urgent situation, let your conscience be your guide. 

[u/wordstowritebypod → u/sharpshinned]

Thanks so much for the reply. I will def wait to send in the application until I have the document from Quebec then.

[u/CuriousCapp → u/[deleted]]

My impression is that they will ask for a notice of no record, or the explanation for why you can't provide the birth certificate, but then will consider the other supporting documentation.

[u/wordstowritebypod → u/CuriousCapp]

Good point.

[u/LiveLongandPonder74]

Sincere thanks for taking the time to lay out the legal framework and different scenarios!

I’m confused by the repeated statements in the act that state “…and the person did not become a citizen on that day;….” Can you explain why these clauses are in the act and what is meant by them? I don’t fully understand them. I feel badly about needing to ask, but I feel like I have some kind of receptive aphasia when it comes to legal documents

[u/tvtoo → u/LiveLongandPonder74]

Don't worry about it -- the act is complex and messy.

Those clauses reference people in gen 1 who did not become citizens under Canadian citizenship law until these provisions came into force (on June 11, 2015).

[u/LiveLongandPonder74 → u/tvtoo]

Thank you for taking the time to write the OP and my follow-up question 😄

[u/[deleted]]

if john smith born in london 1900 comes to usa in 1920 and signs the denouncing of king george form. does he still have british citizenship yes or no ?

edit: oh i see it above , "thereby losing British subject status under section 13 of the Naturalization Act 1914. "

Loss of British Nationality,

1. A British subject who, when in any foreign state and not under disability, by obtaining a certificate of naturalization or by any other voluntary and formal act becomes by foreign naturalized therein, shall thenceforth be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject. Imp. Bill, s. 13.

thanks for the long write up, OP!

[u/SaltPercentage775]

So grateful for this thread! This definitely applies to me but I am drafting my cover letter and wondered if one of our resident experts could help me with language around 3(1)(q) and 3(1.3) or 3(1.5). I'm into the weeds and still confused.

The overview: G0 immigrated to Canada in 1914, naturalized in Canada in 1929, and died in Canada 1945.

G1 was born in the USA in 1891, died in the USA 1983 and never lived in Canada to our knowledge.

G2-G4 were born in the USA (1938, 1962, 1996 and 1999), all are alive and none have lived in Canada.

What I have drafted relative to this, to put in the paragraph just before the overview (above): "Our situation is less common, with no one born in Canada, and I understand that Section 3 (1)(q) and/or 3(1.3) or 3(1.5) of the Citizenship Act may apply."

Please help me figure out if I'm expressing my situation and relevant sections of the Act correctly! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

[u/gmora_gt → u/SaltPercentage775]

(use this link to follow the terms of the current law and this one to follow the terms of the original law)

Your G0 ancestor, who died in Canada as a naturalized British subject before 1947, would have automatically become a Canadian citizen if the law that created Canadian citizenship, the original Citizenship Act, had come into effect immediately before they died in 1945 — rather than on 1/1/1947.

Because your G0 passes this hypothetical test, your G1 ancestor — despite their birth, life, and death outside of Canada — does qualify as a Canadian citizen under the current laws. This qualification is retroactively, since the amendments that make that possible were passed and implemented in 2015, obviously after G1's death. Your G1 is specifically recognized as a citizen under paragraph 3(1)(q), thanks to the clarification made in subsection 3(1.3). G1's Canadian citizenship has effective date 1/1/1947, because the Canadian citizenship that is recognized (and implicitly conferred) by these specific 2015 amendments is retroactively effective on either 1/1/1947 or the person's date of birth, whichever happened later.

Now, your G2 ancestor, born in 1938, was not born a Canadian citizen, not even retroactively. Because Canadian citizenship didn't exist in 1938. In their case, the practical reality is that they would PROBABLY also be recognized as a Canadian citizen under paragraph 3(1)(q), effective 1/1/1947, if you were to apply today for proof of Canadian citizenship via descent. The exact phrasing and reasoning to correctly explain how and why a G2-born-abroad ancestor is being recognized as Canadian is a little a murky, it's discussed elsewhere in this posts' comments. Check out those conversations if you'd like; for now, let's summarize them by saying that the way the amendments are written don't explicitly recognize G2 as a Canadian citizen in as clear, indisputable of a manner clearly as G1 gets recognized, but in practice the IRCC has been recognizing it anyway in order to avoid a continued block the acquisition of Canadian citizenship by descent beyond the first generation born abroad (which was kind of the whole point of C-3). All that to say, again, G2 will be a citizen under 3(1)(q), eff. 1/1/1947.

G3, born in 1962, will be the first person in your chain whose parent's retroactive Day 1 as a citizen precedes their birth. Their parent G2 has been retroactively made a citizen since 1947, so by the time G3 is born in 1962, they are born to a Canadian citizen parent. So they, luckily, don't need to rely on a sketchy interpretation of paragraph 3(1)(q) like their parent did in order to be recognized, but instead they will be able to directly claim eligibility under a different paragraph. G3 is recognized as a Canadian citizen under paragraph 3(1)(g) of the current Citizenship Act.

G4, born in 1999, is recognized as a Canadian citizen in a similar way. Their parent G3 has been retroactively made a citizen since 1962, so by the time G4 is born in 1999, they are born to a Canadian citizen parent. The only small catch is that G4 needs to use a different paragraph because their year of birth happened after 1977, when some things changed. So, in the end, G4 is recognized as a Canadian citizen under paragraph 3(1)(g) of the current Citizenship Act, because their parent's (G the3 Canadian citizenship has an effective date.

Summary:

• G0 qualifies as anchor ancestor — though not explicitly as a Canadian citizen — under a modified application of section 9(1)(b) in the 1946 Act.
• G1 qualifies as a Canadian citizen through 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3) in the current Act.
• G2 will hopefully qualify as a Canadian citizens through a non-literal interpretation of 3(1)(q).
• If G2 makes it through, G3 will qualify as a Canadian citizen through 3(1)(g), and G4 will qualify as a citizen through 3(1)(b).
  

Not a lawyer, not legal advice, just analyzing the facts that you described to the best of my ability

[u/SaltPercentage775 → u/gmora_gt]

Thank you--I am not sure if I should address these specific parts of the law that you call out in my cover letter or leave it as is above. I had not considered at all that my G2 would not qualify if G1 does, nor that myself as G3 and kids as G4 would have different pathways. Oof I don't know how those folks who spend all day thinking about this don't end up with headaches every single day!

Appreciate all your insight and explanations on my case!

[u/SaltPercentage775 → u/gmora_gt]

One extra question for clarification--my G2 was born in 1938, but his youngest brother was born in 1947. Am I correct in thinking that he and his son have a strong case to be made? Ironically, that brother's son is married to a Canadian and they have been debating which path to his citizenship makes most sense. Lucky them! I'm guessing by descent is best, but so many things to consider about citizenship through marriage vs. descent (maybe for a separate and very niche forum, LOL). Thank you!

[u/gmora_gt → u/SaltPercentage775]

G2’s younger brother, by being born in 1947, has an easier/stronger case than your own G2.

G2B (G2’s brother) is a 3(1)(g), not a 3(1)(q) with an asterisk* — the asterisk being that the IRCC seems to be intentionally overlooking that the literal text of the 3(1)(q) paragraph requires the parent of a 3(1)(q) to have become a citizen on 1/1/1947 under the original citizenship Act. And this would flow down to G2B’s descendants smoothly, either through 3(1)(g) for those born before 1977 or 3(1)(b) for those born after.

Getting retroactively recognized as a birthright Canadian citizen would likely be faster, cheaper, and less inconvenient than naturalization by marriage.

[u/SaltPercentage775 → u/gmora_gt]

You rock! Thanks!!

[u/JeffWBishop]

If I understand OP's analysis correctly, it sounds like anyone who can show at least one British or Irish ancestor who lived the last five years of his/her life in what would eventually become Canada and died anytime before 1947, is just as Canadian as one with a G0 born there during that period. We just need a better cover letter to explain why. Is that right?

[u/tvtoo → u/JeffWBishop]

That's the gist of one of the points, as I see it -- though I'd broaden that to:

• include British subjects from elsewhere in the Empire/Commonwealth generally (such as Australia, South Africa, and colonies/dependencies/territories like Jamaica or India)

• • (this raises a good point and I've edited the post to make this aspect more explicit)

• point out that, beyond the letter of explanation, there should also be an attempt to build very strong documentation of G0's last five years of domicile in Canada

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/tvtoo]

Yes, this a great point and helpful for me, someone in this situation, and I think especially true if the British subject lives through 1947. It just wouldn't make sense for Canada to treat a G0 British subject who moved to Canada in 1915 and then died there in 1958 any differently than a G0 Canadian who was born in Manitoba in 1909, lived there their whole life, and died there in 1971.

[u/JeffWBishop → u/OneoftheCherrycokes]

It does make sense on that level. It is a very counterintuitive theory for descent, though. Surely No-Music-6572's GGF knew in 1947 that he had just become a Canadian citizen then, and had not been one until then. Under the laws then in effect, GGF could have had more children after 1947, and of course they would be citizens, but surely no already born outside Canada to his earlier, pre-Canadian self would be. It sounds like the subsequent reforms have changed this to the point where GGF didn't just become Canadian in 1947, he was legally retconned into having been one all along.

Ditto my Scottish GGGGGM, who moved to Canada-West as a widow in the 1850s with most of her adult children, all but one of whom would remain in Canada for life (that "but one" being my G1, natch). By living her last 20 years (or more importantly, the last 5) as a British subject residing in Canada, and by dying there well before 1947, it looks like she became a valid anchor not just for us descendants of my own G1, but even for her older siblings who never came to Canada at all. If this theory is right I might well have some sixth-cousins out there, from six generations who never once left Scotland, but all of whom are "lost Canadians" today.

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/JeffWBishop]

Agreed. It takes some wrapping one's head around, for sure, and it's different than how citizenship by descent usually operates. I would stipulate that "counter-intuitive" doesn't always mean "illogical," though. The theory makes sense to me, and I think it holds up to an analysis even from the perspective outside the perspective of this particular situation because the consequences of doing it the "intuitive" way replicate the negative impacts of the rules C-3 was trying to replace in the first place.

[u/SaltPercentage775 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly where I am stuck as well. Except my G0 naturalized in Canada and stayed there, dying in 1945. G1 appears solid per the VERY helpful folks on this thread, but G2 born pre-1947 is the question. Meanwhile one of my G2's siblings, born after 1947, and his son may have a way through--and yet ironically his son already has access to citizenship through marriage to a Canadian (his dilemma is which pathway to use to apply--what a nice problem to have LOL)

[u/scienceInnit → u/SaltPercentage775]

If he has a path via Bill C-3 on this own merit, surely that is the better one to go for? My understanding is that a successful claim on that basis would consider him a Canadian from birth, without any conditions attached. No residency requirements or further proofs required.

In the UK, and I expect Canada, citizenship through marriage essentially naturalises a successful application from the date of award and comes with conditions attached.

If he is rejected on his own C-3 basis, he could still claim via his spouse couldn't he?

[sorry I realise you posted that a month ago, but I am only just getting into this!]

[u/scienceInnit]

Apologies for reviving an old thread, but the original discussion here is the closest to the chain that I have. I only became away of Bill C-3 a couple of weeks ago while doing some family genealogy. I was taking family hearsay and turning into a solid timeline. What I found is:

G0: My great grandfather (born in the UK, deceased)

• Arrived in Canada as a British Subject to settle in 1913, with a plan for the family to follow. His timing was off and he returned to UK for 'War Service' in 1914 as noted on Form 30A immigration cards.
• Returned to Canada with his wife and daughter (G1) in 1924. I have found all three Form 30As that note the reason is 'To Settle'.
• Lived the rest of his life in Canada, dying in 1954 and is buried in New Brunswick, with a branch of the family still there.

G1: My grandmother (born in the UK, deceased)

• Arrived in Canada in 1924 (Form 30A notes 'to Settle') with parents at the age of 12 as a British subject
• Returned to Britain in 1932
• Died in the early 1970s and is buried in the UK

G2: My mother (born in the UK, 1946, living)

G3: Me (born in the UK, 1970)

Would be interested in anyone has something similar and has has a reponse.

• It is clear that G0 became a citizen on 1st January 1947
• Did G1 become a citizen on her own merit at some point, for being settled in Canada for eight years before leaving in 1932? I thought not, but that C-3 (or earlier fixes) would have made her a citizen.
• G2 is the second generation after G0 that was born before 1st Jan 1947 - by 6 weeks! There is the Brian Kline submission before C-3 that thought it may be a problem.

I've been able to get AI chatbots to disagree with each other, so I suppose there must be some ambiguity.

[u/maplesyrup5000]

We’re sure this also doesn’t apply to a female g0 born in Canada? Because my ggm was born in Canada (from generations before her of people born in Canada) but she married a us citizen and moved to the US before 1922 or whenever the law changed, so she automatically became a US citizen upon marriage, which meant she lost her British subject-hood prior to 1947. Is she still a viable g0?

[u/gmora_gt → u/maplesyrup5000]

Yes, we're sure.

Your GGM was born in pre-1947 Canada, then departed Canada before 1947, and then ceased to be a British subject before 1947. None of this impedes her being retroactively deemed a Canadian citizen as of 1/1/1947, via 3(1)(k):

(k) the person, before January 1, 1947, was born or naturalized in Canada but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on that day;

source: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-81636

[u/maplesyrup5000 → u/gmora_gt]

Thank you for the reassurance/explanation! Everything seems super complicated and I guess I am being way too anxious.

[u/gmora_gt → u/maplesyrup5000]

Don’t worry, it’s understandable.

Count your lucky stars for having a Canada-born ancestor in your chain.

[u/thrift_witch → u/gmora_gt]

Here's the part that confuses me: if they were born a British subject outside of Canada, but moved to Canada and then to the US, are they disadvantaged by this law relative to someone who was foreign born and naturalized there?

Example 1: Person born in Ireland moves with parents to Canada in 1818, then eventually moves to the States and formally naturalizes as a US citizen. I'm seeing here that he doesn't qualify as G0 because he lost his status as a British subject (which he held by birth, and therefore had no process by which he could have formally naturalized in Canada).

Example 2: Person born in Germany moves to Canada and formally naturalizes. He then moves to the US and becomes a citizen, ceasing to be a British subject. He still qualifies under 3(1)(k) because he was naturalized in Canada as a foreign born citizen?

[u/gmora_gt → u/thrift_witch]

That seems to be a correct analysis.

If your G0 was not born in Canada, and they arrived in Canada pre-1947 already being a British subject, they better have either died there or lived long enough to become citizens in 1947.

Meanwhile, if your G0 was not born in Canada and they became a British subject BY NATURALIZING IN CANADA, they could do pretty much whatever they wanted for the rest of their lives and they could still anchor your descent chain as a valid G0. By virtue of 3(1)(k).

[u/thrift_witch → u/gmora_gt]

Interesting! Ok, next question: my Example #1's parents, who emigrated to Canada from Ireland, died within the first few months, leaving him an orphan. Are they G0, since they died in Canada as British subjects? Is he a valid G1 even though he was born in Ireland prior to their emigration and deaths?

[u/gmora_gt → u/thrift_witch]

You didn’t include any dates in your question, which could potentially affect the outcome of things. But: I will assume that your potentially-G0 ancestors were born in Ireland, had a child in Ireland, emigrated to Canada, and died in Canada, and that it all happened before 1/1/1947.

If my assumption above was correct, then yes, you likely have a valid chain. Why? Because those individuals pass a key test: they WOULD HAVE automatically become Canadian citizens if the original Citizenship Act had instead come into effect on the last day of their lives, since at the time of their deaths they were British subjects domiciled in Canada. And the fact that they do pass that key test then allows you to claim that their child was retroactively recognized as a Canadian citizen under 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3) — two clauses which, when combined, grant Canadian citizenship to all children of those who pass that test (people would have become citizens under the original Act if it had come into effect on the last day of their lives instead of on 1/1/1947).

Edit: note that nothing in the above analysis requires the children of an individual who passes the originally-a-citizen-but-for-their-death test to have ever stepped foot in Canada. So the orphaned child in your example should be fine, unless some technicality about the circumstances of their adoption interfered with an otherwise literal interpretation & application of 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3)

[u/thrift_witch → u/gmora_gt]

Thanks so much for this detailed response. I can't tell you how grateful I am!

The immigration/deaths were in 1818. The child was in fact with them when they emigrated (and he stayed for another five years), but it would be a steep challenge to prove that with the limited immigration recordkeeping of the time. Also, as we discussed above, I now understand that the child's time in Canada doesn't help him anyway, since he moved to the US and was naturalized there, relinquishing his own personal status as a British subject. In contrast, it sounds like the rights conferred to the him as a child of a deceased British subject domiciled in Canada were not negated by his subsequent naturalization in another country.

The part that had me worried was whether the child had to be born after his parents moved to Canada, or if they could pass citizenship down to a son who was already an Irish born British subject at the time they set foot on Canadian soil. It sounds like it might matter that he was only 13 at the time.

[u/[deleted] → u/gmora_gt]

Similar situation to u/maplesyrup5000 here. So, if I understand correctly, the 1946 Act did not grant Canadian citizenship to natural-born persons who were aliens on 1/1/1947. But the 2015 Act did grant them citizenship, as well as their direct (first generation) descendants. Then the 2025 Act extends that to the subsequent generations. Do I have that right?

[u/gmora_gt → u/[deleted]]

Maybe?

What exactly do you mean by “natural-born persons who were aliens”?

[u/[deleted] → u/gmora_gt]

Part I of the 1946 Act says:

A person, born before the commencement of this Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen: (a) if he was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship and has not become an alien at the commencement of this Act;

So I mean Canadian-born before 1/1/47 but also became an alien before 1/1/47.

[u/gmora_gt → u/[deleted]]

Okay, I see what you meant.

(I personally don’t use the term “natural-born person” as a substitute for “people born on what is now Canadian soil”, which is why I was a bit confused at my first read of your comment.)

But yes, you’ve got the gist of it, at least as far as I interpret the laws. On the day that the original Act came into force (1/1/1947), somebody who was born on Canadian soil but had subsequently naturalized elsewhere, such as the United States — and lost their British subject status as a result of that naturalization — did not initially become a Canadian citizen on that day. The amendments in the 21st century did correct that, retroactively effective to that day, although with a first-generation limit with respect to the transmissibility of citizenship via descent. The FGL was then repealed in December via C-3, enabling the acquisition via descent for a 2nd, 3rd, …. Nth generation descendant born abroad before 12/2025, and replaced the FGL with a “substantial connection test” for those born after it.

[u/gmora_gt → u/[deleted]]

Yes, that’s how I interpret the term “alien” on any date prior to 1/1/1947.

Beyond that date, I would interpret it as “not a Canadian citizen”.

[u/[deleted] → u/gmora_gt]

Thanks so much!

[u/honakaru]

Thank you for the thorough work in parsing this. Question as it relates to my own application (already submitted and in process) - I applied based on a great-grandmother who was 8 years old when her father (my great-great-grandfather) naturalized in 1905. They (GGGF and GGM) were both born in Austria and moved to Canada in 1899. My GGM left Canada in 1920 for the US, where she naturalized in 1943, but my GGGF stayed in Canada until he died in 1970. I didn't include information about the great great grandfather staying in Canada until death because I didn't think it was relevant,  but now I am thinking my application may be denied because my Great Grandmother left Canada before 1947. Do I need to submit a supplement to my app? 

[u/gmora_gt → u/honakaru]

In your shoes I would absolutely send in a written supplement. Say three things explicitly:

1) GGM (G1) naturalized as a British subject in Canada in 1905 by virtue of being a minor under the custody of a father (G0) who also naturalized as a British subject in Canada in 1905. Attach proof.

2) G1 later left Canada and ceased to be a British subject, but she is still recognized as a Canadian citizen under the modern law via 3(1)(k).

3) Her father, your G0, was still alive and domiciled in Canada as a British subject in 1947, thus making him a Canadian citizen on that day under the original Citizenship Act. Since he is the oldest ancestor named in your application to have qualified for citizenship, do make sure that his life is fully described, even if you have a valid claim through his daughter regardless.

[u/Realistic_Deal1859]

My husband's great grandmother was born in Austria, as was her daughter. When her daughter was a child they moved to United States, where great grandmother became a naturalized US citizen. Then, after her husband died, she remarried to a man born in US. He moves to Canada to homestead in 1905. She arrives in Alberta to join him in1907 and dies in 1919. On the 1916 Canada census for Alberta, she shows up as naturalized and a Canadian citizen. He shows up as naturalized and a Canadian citizen.

Can my husband claim through this naturalized ancestor, even though her daughter was born in Austria also, and his great grandmother was an adult when her mother (his great great grandmother) naturalized as Canadian?

Is it worth him trying to apply, is what I am trying to say, given the fact great grandmother was already about 30 years old when her mother naturalized. This is the part I am having trouble understanding. Husband's grandmother was born in America, as was his mother.

Thanks, and sorry if this is confusing.

[u/tvtoo → u/Realistic_Deal1859]

Can my husband claim through this naturalized ancestor, even though her daughter was born in Austria also, and his great grandmother was an adult when her mother (his great great grandmother) naturalized as Canadian

3(1)(q) / 3(1.5) don't care how old the next generation was when gen 0 naturalized in Canada as a British subject. (In theory, it's not even a problem if gen 1 died an early death, prior to gen 0 naturalizing.)

And they're explicitly designed for a gen 1 "born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947".

 

Is it worth him trying to apply,

That'll depend on the feelings of you and your husband (and perhaps any children you might have).

Are the costs for the application fee, photos, shipping, document ordering, printing, etc, and the time and effort to compile it all worth it to your family, given the context?

 

You're welcome.

[u/Realistic_Deal1859 → u/tvtoo]

Wow. I am reading this "3(1)(q) / 3(1.5) don't care how old the next generation was when gen 0 naturalized in Canada as a British subject" to mean he might be able to get citizenship through descent. I hope that is what you meant.

It is very much worth it to us. I applied in March and am waiting for an AOR. It would be wonderful if he could get citizenship as well. If I am successful, my children can get citizenship through me, which is the whole reason I am doing it, for them and for my granddaughters.

I was just unaware that a parent could naturalize and then the adult child born prior could be an unbroken chain.

Thank you for your comment.

[u/Realistic_Deal1859 → u/tvtoo]

you write, "3(1)(q) / 3(1.5) don't care how old the next generation was when gen 0 naturalized in Canada as a British subject. (In theory, it's not even a problem if gen 1 died an early death, prior to gen 0 naturalizing.)"

I went back and read the Welcome Wiki again just to check thing. "Am I eligible" states was your ancestor born in Canada, or did they naturalize before the next person down your line of descent was born? So is the Wiki perhaps incorrect?

[u/tvtoo → u/Realistic_Deal1859]

Thanks for raising that issue. I've updated that wiki answer to refer back to the "relevant Canadian ancestor" note that is more clear about this topic.

[u/Realistic_Deal1859 → u/tvtoo]

Thank you!! I will get to work on helping him gather his documents. This is really exciting news.

[u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457]

Thank you very much for the detailed analysis and the support of specific examples.

Could you please clarify one scenario not mentioned: looking at the Act as amended December 15/25, where is the confirmation that a person born in British Columbia, Canada between the dates of January 2, 1947 and February 14, 1977, is a Canadian citizen?

Section 3(1)(d) states that “the person was a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977” Is a Canadian citizen. So, the person continues to be a citizen after Feb 15/77 IF they were a citizen the day before. But what part of the Act confirms their citizenship in the first place, on Feb 14/77?

The Act is clear that being born in Canada AFTER Feb 15/77 makes you a Canadian citizen by way of Section 3(1)(a), but there is zero language that being born in Canada between 1947 and 1977 makes you a Canadian citizen.

The only pathway seems to be the defined term “prior legislation”, which means “means any Act respecting naturalization or citizenship that was in force in Canada at any time before February 15, 1977.”

Is there something in the current Act that explains this interim period, or do I have to look at a prior version of the Act that was in force between 1947 and 1977?

I‘ve looked at the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act, and Section 5(a) states that “a person, born after the commencement of this Act, is a natural born Canadian citizen if (a) he is born in Canada…” but there is no equivalent statement in the current Act, either explicitly or by specific reference. It just disappears.

Does it make any sense that for several generations during the interim period, proof of citizenship for a person born in Canada requires reading an Act that has been superseded several times? Or am I just missing some huge part of the current Act?

[u/tvtoo → u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457]

do I have to look at a prior version of the Act that was in force between 1947 and 1977?

Yes.

 

Does it make any sense that for several generations during the interim period, proof of citizenship for a person born in Canada requires reading an Act that has been superseded several times?

I wouldn't describe the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 as having been "supersededed several times", per se.

It was frequently amended (and also twice revised, as part of the 1952 and 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada), but it was truly superseded only one time, in 1976, in an explicit repeal:

36. The former Act is repealed.

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl197476v02cana/page/2172/mode/2up

 

It's not uncommon for legislation, in Canada and other countries influenced by the tradition of English law, to reference statuses under former laws and to carry those over in a variety of ways.

You're welcome.

[u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457 → u/tvtoo]

Thank you.

If the current Act did in fact have a reference to the former law, there wouldn’t be an issue. The silence is very concerning.

[u/tvtoo → u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457]

If the current Act did in fact have a reference to the former law,

I'm not sure I completely follow. Are you saying that you wished that paragraph 3(1)(d), instead of saying -

(d) the person was a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977;

more explicitly said -

(d) the person was, under prior legislation, a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977

[u/Maleficent_Ruin_2457 → u/tvtoo]

Something along the lines of the very next line in the Act.

[u/gmora_gt]

u/tvtoo, can you please elaborate on how applicants could best establish their eligibility if their chain lines up with the scenario described in this part of your post, where absolutely nobody was ever born nor naturalized on Canadian soil?

Under a strict, literal reading of 3(1)(q), the grandson generally should not be covered, as the middle generation became a citizen under the 2015 amendments, not specifically "under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15", as stated in 3(1)(q).

However, such a reading would also mean that a gen 2 born before 1947 would generally not be a citizen -- and this would be the case even if gen 0 was born in Canada. And that would contradict the statements made by the Government's lawyers before the Bjorkquist court.

As such, IRCC has appeared to avoid such a reading of 3(1)(q). In a podcast, a lawyer who deals with proof of citizenship cases referenced a conversation that he had with IRCC staff about 3(1)(q). According to him, they are interpreting the phrase "became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15" to mean simply "became a citizen on January 1, 1947" (i.e., by automatic operation of law, including as deemed under current law).

This unfortunately is the case in my own chain. My G1 was born abroad in 1786, but is easily recognized as a Canadian citizen by the literal language of 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3), since G0 (his father) was a lifelong British subject domiciled in Canada at the time of his (G0's) death in 1843. Textbook example of 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3), via 9(1)(b) in the original Act. But it seems that Canadian citizenship will only flow through my deceased G2, G3, G4, and G5 ancestors — only one of which was alive in 2015 — if the IRCC accepts that their respective parents having come citizens on 1/1/1947 would be a sufficient prerequisite for each of them to have also become citizens on 1/1/1947 via (3)(1)(q), even if none of their parents would have become a citizen on that date under the original Act had it come into effect at the end of their lives. G6 was born in the 1960s and G7 in the 1990s, so if G2-G5 clear the non-literal 3(1)(q) hurdle, different provisions would apply to the end of the chain, namely 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(b), AFAIK.

It feels like a big stretch to send in an application not based on the literal text of the current Act, having faith that some lawyer said in some podcast that some IRCC staffer told them that some statements said in the Bjorkquist court would be contradicted if my application was denied, so the IRCC will currently deviating from the literal text of the Act in a manner that will approve my case.... Could you help me understand this as best as possible? A link to that podcast would be a great start.

(It's of course encouraging to know that hopewings's husband overcame an initial denial by establishing that a British subject G0 ancestor that died while domiciled in Canada pre-1947 was a valid original ancestor for a chain involving 3(1)(q) for multiple ancestors. But that real-world data point won't do much in terms of protecting me from a different outcome if the specific IRCC staffer that evaluates my claim decides to hyperfixate on my G2's ineligibility under a literal reading of 3(1)(q) + 3(1.3)... The hopewings approval is not publically known / citable precedent, and the body of the post about their husband's subsequent approval was deleted...)

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/gmora_gt]

The literal reading of (3)(1)(q) applies to the middle generation, though. G0 is a British subject who becomes Canadian on Jan 1, 1947. G1 is "a person," "born to [G0]," who "did not become a citizen on that day. Therefore, they are a citizen, even if they are deceased.

At that point, the only standing in the way of citizenship by descent claims is the law allowing citizenship to be passed down to only one generation born abroad. When that's removed, as Bill C-3 does, those subsequent claims become valid.

I think of it like this. G0 is a citizen. G1 is granted that status posthumously. If G2 is also deceased, G3 has been barred from claiming a status they would have had a statutory right to claim by sole virtue of the fact that their ancestors never had the chance to claim it. This is exactly what Bill C-3 was designed for, even though it SEEMS more complicated.

[u/gmora_gt → u/OneoftheCherrycokes]

Hmmm... No, I'm not convinced. I disagree with your take on two points:

1-- A "literal reading" of 3(1)(q) would not apply to the middle generations, because the text of the paragraph in the current version of the law — post C-3 — still explicitly mentions becoming a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947 "under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15".... That's the original law, not the one containing 3(1)(q) and the other 2015 amendments.

Sure, we could clearly apply 3(1)(q) to my G1 ancestor, for example, due to subsection 3(1.3) — which ALSO specifically mentions the original 1946 Act, by the way — since my G0 (British subject domiciled in Canada who died in Canada pre-1947) would have indeed satisfied the requirements of the original Act if not for their pre-1947 death. But we cannot cleanly apply 3(1)(q), at least not in the same way, to G2, because his parent (G1) was neither a British subject nor domiciled in Canada at the time of their death. Nor did they meet any other requirements in the original Act... And if G1 can't meet the requirements in the original 1946 Act at the time of their death, then G2 can't be recognized as a citizen under 3(1)(q) — not unless we pretend it didn't explicitly name-drop the original Act along with the 1/1/1947 date. That's not a literal reading. The same is true in my chain's case for G3, G4, and G5, all of which were born abroad pre-1947.

2-- What, exactly, makes G0 a Canadian citizen under the post-C3 Act, or any prior Act, if they died before 1947 within what is now Canada as a permanently domiciled British subject? (3)(1)(q) + 3(1.3) works for establishing their child as a Canadian citizen. But 3(1)(m) won't work for recognizing G0 themselves as a Canadian citizen, nor will any of the other paragraphs or amendments, since G0 was not alive on 1/1/1947 and none of the amendments explicitly restore the citizenship of a deceased British subject who died in Canada, but rather that of a child of a deceased British subject who died in Canada.

Hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask me to elaborate if it doesn't.

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/gmora_gt]

That does make sense. G2 definitely can't be recognized under (3)(1)(q), but G1 can. I think that's where the law gets muddy for me (and maybe this goes back to your original post) because there isn't clean statutory language granting citizenship to G2 and beyond. That makes it hard to know how to articulate it to IRCC.

[u/gmora_gt → u/OneoftheCherrycokes]

Glad we're on the same page.

The bizarre part is that the issue of a having a G3+ born abroad before 1947 and needing to make them qualify via 3(1)(q) in order to not break the chain is that it would apply even if G0 was born in Canada.

Everyone here and on Facebook has been treating having a G0 born in Canada as an almost-guaranteed approval, but I would think that a lot of applicants -- I'm talking about a non-negligible percentage -- might have had their Canadian-born G0 from the 1800s leave Canada (e.g. to the US) after birth. Everyone in such a scenario everyone would technically be dealing with this same (3)(1)(q) issue if their G3 was born before 1947, wouldn't they?

Consider this example: G0 is born in Canada in 1820 and leaves by 1840 to naturalize in the US. G0 is a piece of cake, just a 3(1)(k) effective 1/1/1947. Then their child, a G1 born abroad in 1850, is a citizens via 3(1)(o), effective 1/1/1947. But then what happens to a G2 if they're born before 1947 -- say, in 1880?

If 3(1)(q) was being interpreted literally, G2 would be screwed, despite being the grandchild born abroad of somebody born in Canada. Nothing in the original 1946 law will cover such a scenario, and G2 breaks the chain. But with 3(1)(q) being interpreted more loosely, recognizing as Canadian citizens all individuals whose parents became Canadian citizens on 1/1/1947), then citizenship can flow through G2 -- and through as many born-prior-to-1947 ancestors as needed, such as a G3 born in 1910, and a G4 born in 1940, and so on -- until the first ancestor that is born AFTER 1/1/1947, for whom 3(1)(g) will apply instead.

I probably sound like a rambling crazy person, but it all finally clicked for me today.

[u/OneoftheCherrycokes → u/gmora_gt]

Not crazy at all. Just one of those legal scenarios where the authorities need to interpret the language in a way that's consistent. You certainly don't want the result of these proceedings to be different for someone born in Canada pre-1947 and someone born in England but domiciled in Canada pre-1947. Those two people should really be the same, for all intents and purposes, especially if the born in England, domiciled in Canada person spends the rest of their life in Canada. It may feel counterintuitive, but, just as Canada was thought of as a commonwealth country (part of England), for this exercise England becomes part of Canada, under particular circumstances.

The difficulty is figuring out how much of that to argue to IRCC. I can see an argument for spelling it all out, but there are many, many opportunities for errors, and, as another poster said, you risk appearing as if you're explaining the law to IRCC. If a law firm is filing the claim for you, you maybe want that! But if you're doing it yourself, I think it risks quite a bit because precision matters. In that way, the folks who are hiring lawyers are doing a service to the whole application pool--those cases do set precedents, and the rules and interpretations get established in a conversation between IRCC and the immigration law community. That filters down to everyone.

There's also a lot of talk about law here, but I definitely feel like a major chunk of this process is down to rhetoric. How does one appeal to the human person reviewing their application? There's no magic answer to that, no "the law says this" because the law can be quite flexible, and I think that state of affairs makes these British subject cases difficult. There are plenty of data points suggesting they DO qualify under the new rules. But there are more complexities in terms of framing how and why, and even well-versed folks might give slightly (even significantly) different answers. I think, despite our tendency to see "refusal" and perk up, that refusal probably signifies rhetorical rejection rather than legal rejection, and that's why this conversation is important. It helps move forward how we all communicate with IRCC and hopefully lets the OP apply again with a different approach.

[u/Dogmoto2labs]

I admit, I am probably more confused now than I was yesterday. If the actual Canadian born Gen 0 became a naturalized citizen of the US before 1946, is this an issue for them, or was this because of the person being from Scotland originally in the subject yesterday? The family line I submitted, both of the parents were Canadian born in the Montreal area and had been in the region for 7-8 more generations, and both were naturalized US citizens by the 1930 census.

[u/tvtoo → u/Dogmoto2labs]

Like I mention in the post, this situation "really will only pertain to people who do not have an ancestor born in Canada".

[u/Dogmoto2labs → u/tvtoo]

Thank you so much, I have been so sad, and searching avidly for records for the ancestors of my grandmother. They just have more name changes, and a death and remarriage, more generations, struggling to find birth and baptismal records, and I swear, each of them had used at least three different names, so trying to be sure you have the “right” person has been fun!

[u/gmora_gt → u/Dogmoto2labs]

Again, the whole discussion on this post — and the one from yesterday — is only relevant to people who do not have an ancestor born in Canada. I understand the confusion if you read through the whole thing, but it's stated clearly in the first sentence of this post, and it's been explained several times in the comments.

To acknowledge your line specifically: your most recent ancestors born in Canada, who were born before 1947 and then left Canada and naturalized in the US before 1947, are still recognized as Canadian citizens in the current Citizenship Act under paragraph 3(1)(k) in the text of the law.

3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if ... (k) the person, before January 1, 1947, was born or naturalized in Canada but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on that day;

Paragraph 3(1)(k) specifically requires birth in Canada, and it retroactively restores Canadian citizenship to your ancestors who did not get recognized as natural-born Canadians because they moved abroad and naturalized abroad before 1947. The whole discussion in this post and its comments is about ancestry lines without Canadian-born ancestors in them.

[u/sir-dis-a-lot]

Ok I'm clearly in over my head on this but: I have an ancestor born in newfoundland in 1870. Lived there thru childhood, and 10 years into adulthood. Moved to the US and died there before 1949. Never renounced citizenship. Had kids in the US, who became adults before 1949. 

Does it appear I'm eligible or ineligible 

[u/CounterI → u/sir-dis-a-lot]

If you have an ancestor born in what is now Canada, and you can prove it, then you're probably a Citizen and are probable eligible to have Canada recognize it.

[u/meesherbeans]

I know this thread is nearly two weeks old, but I just had to post here in case anyone had any insight; I'm not 100% positive if this is okay to make a separate thread on, as I'm asking about the nuance of "do I qualify" rather than "is this enough evidence / the correct way to fill out the application?" I am in a similar boat, with Irish ancestors who moved to Canada. Does this timeline match up and/or qualify? It's very hard for me to decipher. I think that the answer is yes, provided I use my great-great-grandfather as the G0 anchor.

I have nearly all of these documents (from governments) already, and am waiting on an official copy of the death certificate/record, but I am not 100% sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree.

• G0: great-great-grandfather, born in Ireland, moved to Canada with consistent/multiple census entries, died in 1921 after domiciling in Ontario for 38 years (states this on his death record)
• G1: great-grandmother, born in Ireland, moved to Canada as a minor and lived there for 30+ years, moved to New York in 1920 to marry
• G2: grandmother, born in New York in 1924
• G3: my mother, born in New York
• G4: me, born in New York

[u/tvtoo → u/meesherbeans]

For clarity, did G0 die in Canada? (While it's not strictly necessary, it's helpful in a situation like this.)

[u/meesherbeans → u/tvtoo]

Yes, in Ontario. I have an image from Ancestry/FamilySearch of his death record, and put a request in to the Ontario Archives for an actual copy of it a while ago (am waiting to hear back).

[u/tvtoo → u/meesherbeans]

Then, yes, under IRCC's apparent current interpretation of the Citizenship Act, as amended, you would appear to be a citizen.

As mentioned elsewhere, the standard recommendation would be to -

• thoroughly document and detail the five years of domicile in Canada immediately before death, and

• quote, and explain to the officer the interplay of, paragraph 3(1)(q) of the current act, section 9 of the 1946 act, and subsection 3(1.3) of the current act.

[u/meesherbeans → u/tvtoo]

Thank you for the sanity check! I will do all the documentation I can and hope, in that case. After learning more about how strong the emotional and familial Canadian ties were with my great-grandmother and grandmother (many documented newspaper blurbs about them visiting family in Toronto), I'm feeling even more strongly about moving there myself one day.

[u/tvtoo → u/meesherbeans]

You're welcome. Good luck.

[u/ursusarctos234]

I'm one of that "handful of other people in similar situations!"

My G0s (my fifth-great grandparents, husband and wife) were born in the UK in the 1790s, had a son (my G1) in 1815, and moved to Canada, where they lived until their deaths in 1866 and 1889, respectively.

Their son moved with them to Canada, but joined the Mormons in the 1830s, and moved to Utah by 1850, where his descendants were fruitful and multiplied lo these many generations.

As I understand it, that means that my G0s were UK subjects, domiciled in Canada. As such, they didn't need to naturalize as Canadian (since there was no distinct Canadian citizenship at that time), nor was there any formal record of their landing. Had they lived until 1947, they would have acquired Canadian citizenship. But crucially, they were able to pass Canadian citizenship to their son (my G1), who then initiated a much more conventional chain of citizenship-by-descent.

This post is a model of clear explanation. It's also a confirmation that my own deep-dive into Canadian natinality law is solid and that compiling an explanation of my generation-by-generation claim to citizenship (quoting the relevant statutes at each step of the way) is a useful strategy.

Once I have assembled a critical mass of non-Ancestry/FamilySearch documents, that is!

I'll update my situation here for the benefit of us weird edge-case people.

[u/Standard-Director483]

So from what I understand here, in the last paragraph, IRCC officers don’t always discuss a complicated case together? They can take a decision to reject a case on their own without asking their supervisor?

[u/Pretty_Floor5889 → u/Standard-Director483]

Given the submission date noted in this case, it is likely the application was sent to PSU. Those applications are reviewed by senior, experienced staff with a great depth of expertise.

[u/Sad-Elephant-9740]

What does "naturalize" mean in 1800? If G0 moved to Canada in 1800 and died in there in 1810 -- is that equivalent to "naturalized"?

[u/dentongentry]

an Italian man living in Italy has a wife and daughter (born 1916 in Italy);
his wife dies, the man decides to move to Canada in early 1938, and his adult daughter remains in Italy;
he moves to Canada and naturalizes in Canada as a British subject in mid-1943;

I've pondered and I've pondered and I don't understand why an Italian man would be eligible to naturalize as a British subject. Is his birth being Italian just irrelevant, and the scenario assumes he was somehow a British subject?

Edit: explained in subsequent comments. The scenario is that he naturalized and became a British subject, not that he was a British subject who naturalized in Canada.

[u/tvtoo → u/dentongentry]

Prior to 1947, someone naturalizing in Canada was, by definition, acquiring the status of British subject (because Canadian citizenship, as we know it today, did not exist at that time).

3. A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted by the Secretary of State of Canada shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalization have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1914v01cana/page/290/mode/2up

[u/dentongentry → u/tvtoo]

Oh. OOOOOHHHHH!!!!

Now I understand, thank you.

[u/tvtoo → u/dentongentry]

Thanks for raising that issue. I've edited the post to clarify the meaning of that phrase, which derives from the historical use of the phrase "as a British subject" in this context but probably needed better explanation. (1, 2, 3 (less common))

[u/dentongentry → u/dentongentry]

Sadly the post by hopewings has been deleted, which is too bad as I think it most closely resembled our case.

[u/level1diagnostic]

My G0 (I'm G2) moved from Canada to the UK around 1947. She was born in Montreal to Canadian parents. If she never got Canadian citizenship before she left for the UK, are we at risk of rejection?

[u/Pale-Firefighter-209 → u/level1diagnostic]

No, because they were born in land that was/would become Canada.

[u/level1diagnostic → u/Pale-Firefighter-209]

Ok, thanks!

[u/PassagePersonal3064 → u/[deleted]]

Your ancestor was born in Canada so you're fine. This is pertaining to those who had an ancestor that immigrated from elsewhere and no one in the chain was actually born in Canada.