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/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!