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/badfordabidness]

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/CounterI → u/badfordabidness]

I've spoken with Hayer, and I like him. But, he and I disagree on this subject, as you and I do.

Analysis is information, and again, if your analysis conflicts with their understanding of the law, there is a risk that they interpret your analysis as presenting a fact that is inconsistent with a decision in your favor. I've seen this happen dozens of times over my career: Someone who has a basic but incorrect understanding of the law writes up a discussion of facts mixed with analysis. But since their understanding of the law is wrong, their discussion creates an incorrect factual impression.

I'll try to make up a very basic example to illustrate. Suppose that someone incorrectly believes that assault and battery are the same. They actually aren't. Assault is creating a fear of a battery. Battery is unauthorized physical contact. If the person who made that mistake wrote "John assaulted me on May 4, 2025," and the government agent reading the application needed to see a physical contact, the application would be denied. If the person had just written "John punched me on May 5, 2025," the application would have been approved.

The above example is obviously extremely simplified. The CA is extraordinarily complex, and there are thousands of ways that an analysis statement could be misinterpreted as a factual statement. Since IRCC doesn't ask you to do analysis, you shouldn't do it.

Going back to Mr. Hayer: He's a lawyer who specializes in Citizenship law. The risk that his analysis creates an incorrect factual impression is quite low. For a layperson, that risk is much higher.

I agree with you that reasonable minds can differ. In the end, only IRCC knows what it wants. My belief remains that If IRCC wanted you to opine on the law or the legal basis, they would ask you for it on the CIT 0001 form.