Citizenship

Question 1

Rhodri came to Canada as a refugee from Guyana on January 1, 2014. His daughter, Jemma, was born in December 2014. On January 1, 2015, he was granted refugee protection by the RPD. On January 1, 2016, he became a permanent resident. He has made four overnight trips to the U.S. for one night only but has not otherwise left Canada. In what month did he become eligible for citizenship based on his days of residency?

A) January 2019

B) January 2021

C) January 2018

D) June 2018

Answer 1

D: Further to s. 5(1.001)(a) for every day during which the Rhodri was physically present in Canada as a protected person under the IRPA before becoming a permanent resident, he accumulated half of a day of physical presence, up to a maximum of 365 days .His time before becoming a protected person is not credited. He therefore accumulated six (6) months of physical presence during his year as a protected person. He must therefore wait an additional 2.5 years after becoming a PR, for a total of 3 years, before applying for citizenship.

Additionally, any part of a day spent in Canada counts as a day of physical presence – his overnight trips therefore do not deduct from the overall total as he spent at least part of each day in Canada.

Finally, a Canadian born child does not ever alter eligibility for Canadian citizenship contrary to the popular “anchor baby” myth.

Question 2

Which of the following individuals must complete an English language test for a regular grant of citizenship under s. 5 of the Act?

A) A 55 year old applicant with no formal education.

B) A 34 year old applicant who completed their post-secondary studies at Queen’s.

C) A 46 year old applicant who completed their post-secondary studies abroad in Spanish.

D) A 43 year old who completed LINC (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada) training and achieved a CLB of 4

Answer 2

C: Those who are above the age of 54 or who have completed post-secondary studies in English or French, or certain programs such as the LINC and achieved a CLB of 4 or greater, are all exempt from completing an English language test.

Question 3

Cosmin has been a permanent resident of Canada for 10 years and has owned a construction company in Calgary for the last 8 years. He often pays many of his employees in cash to avoid payroll taxes. Which of the following is true with respect to his tax obligations prior to applying for citizenship?

A) He must have complied with the tax filing obligations under the Income Tax Act for the last 5 years.

B) He must have complied with the tax filing obligations under the Income Tax Act for himself and his business for at least 3 of the last 5 years.

C) He must have complied with the tax filing obligations under the Income Tax Act for himself for the last at least 3 of the last 5 years.

D) He must have complied with the tax filing obligations under the Income Tax Act since coming to Canada.

Answer 3

C: The requirements relate to personal income tax returns, not taxes for businesses that the applicant may own. They requirement is only 3 of the last 5 years, however, when he files, the CRA may advise him that he owes back taxes for years past, which he would have to resolve.

Question 4

True or False: Citizenship applicants must have paid taxes for at least 3 of the last 5 years preceding their application for citizenship.

Answer 4

False: Applicants are not required to have paid any amount in taxes; in many circumstances they may not owe taxes. However, they must have filed their taxes and otherwise met their tax filing obligations under the Income Tax Act for the appropriate relevant period.

Question 5

Which of the following is not an exemption to birthright citizenship (jus soli) for a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and either of his parents was:

A) A diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government

B) An employee in the service of a person referred to in paragraph (a)

C) An officer or employee in Canada of a specialized agency of the United Nations with diplomatic privileges and immunities certified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be equivalent to those granted to a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a)

D) An employee of a foreign consulate or embassy without diplomatic privileges

Answer 5

D: The children of an employee or staff member of a foreign government in Canada without diplomatic privileges are not prevented from acquiring citizenship by birth in Canada. They key is whether they enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities, as was the case with the son of Russian spies in the Supreme Court’s seminal case of Vavilov.

Question 6

Which of the following is not an exception to the physical presence requirements for residency under the Citizenship Act? (select all that apply)

A) An applicant who during the six years immediately before the date of their application, completed three years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces

B) A permanent resident who is outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent

C) A permanent resident who is the minor child of a citizen, if an application for citizenship is made by a person authorized to make the application on their behalf

D) A permanent resident who is outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business

Answer 6

B & D: These two are exceptions to the PR residency requirements under IRPA s. 28(2) but are not an exception to the residency requirements for citizenship. The two residency requirements should not be conflated, which is a common mistake.

Question 7

Konstantina was born in Greece and sponsored to Canada by her husband, Christos, who had recently become a citizen. In Canada, they had a daughter, Maria. After several years, they decided to move back to Greece for work and to be closer to family. In Greece, they had a son, Bill. Which of the following is true regarding the citizenship status of the children?

A) Neither Maria nor Bill are citizens since Konstantina was not a citizen at the time of their birth.

B) Maria is a citizen, but Bill is not as he is the second generation born abroad.

C) Both Maria and Bill are Canadian citizens.

D) Maria is a citizen by birth, but Bill must apply for a grant of citizenship.

Answer 7

C: Both children are citizens. Maria was born in Canada (jus soli), and the first generation born abroad rule does not limit Bill as at least one of his parents was naturalized in Canada after being born abroad (jus sanguinis). Bill’s children, however, would be considered the second generation born abroad and not entitled to citizenship. Bill does not have to apply for a “grant” of citizenship, just proof of citizenship (i.e. a citizenship certificate application).

Question 8

Which of the following is not a method of acquiring Canadian citizenship?

A) Jus soli (citizenship by birth)

B) Jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent)

C) Jure matrimonii (citizenship by marriage)

D) Naturalization (citizenship by grant)

Answer 8

C: While some countries provide for citizenship by marriage, this is not the case under the Citizenship Act. A spouse of a citizen must first be sponsored as a PR and then meet the other requirements for citizenship as with any PR.

Question 9

Which of the following are among the requirements for an adult grant of citizenship under s. 5 of the Act? (select all that apply)

A) Demonstrating 3 out of 5 years of residence in Canada

B) Filing income taxes

C) Declaring an intention to reside in Canada

D) Completing a Canadian knowledge test

E) All of the above

Answer 9

A, B and D: The “intention to reside” provision was introduced under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act in 2015 but later removed

Question 10

What is maximum number of citizenships an individual can hold under Canadian law?

A) Only Canadian citizenship.

B) Dual-citizenship with their home country and Canada.

C) Dual-citizenship with Canada and any country that grants them citizenship after becoming a Canadian citizen.

D) Unlimited.

Answer 10

D: Under Canadian law, there are no restrictions on how many multiple citizenships an individual may hold in addition to Canadian citizenship. Every country decides whom it considers to be a citizen. If more than one country recognizes an individual as a citizen, there is no effect on Canadian citizenship. No separate permission or application for dual or multiple citizenship is required.

Notably, however, other countries have limitations on citizenship. Some countries (e.g. India) prohibit holding dual-citizenship with another country and require citizens give up their citizenship when acquiring another citizenship. These laws are specific to each nation.

Question 11

Afsaneh is scheduled to take the oath of citizenship as the final step to her grant of citizenship. On the day of the oath, she would like to continue to wear her niqab and swear the oath of Canadian citizenship on the Quran. Will she be permitted to do so?

A) No, IRCC officials must verify the individual has publicly recited the oath, which will be impeded by her veil.

B) Yes, she will be allowed to do so if she requests an accommodation and follows the required procedure.

C) No, she must either swear the oath on the bible or affirm the oath in a neutral manner.

D) A and C

Answer 11

B: Further to the case of Ishaq, the Courts have ruled taking the oath should allow the greatest possible freedom in religious solemnization.

Question 12

Hassan is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). For the past four (4) years, Hassan and his wife, Goli, have been living abroad where Hassan has been stationed for his employment. They have both been permanent residents for over 5 years. Could they be eligible to apply for citizenship?

A) Only Hassan may be eligible as he has fulfilled the condition of serving with the CAF for at least three (3) years.

B) Hassan may be eligible, but Goli is not as Hassan is not a Canadian citizen who is employed by the CAF.

C) Both Hassan and Goli may be eligible.

D) Neither Hassan or Goli are eligible until they return to Canada.

Answer 12

C: Hassan may be eligible under both s. 5(1.01) and (1.2) of the Citizenship Act. Goli may be eligible under s. 5(1.03). In full, the relevant provisions provide as follows:

Period of physical presence — permanent residents

(1.02) Any day during which an applicant for citizenship was a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and was employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, shall be treated as equivalent to one day of physical presence in Canada for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and 11(1)(d).

Period of physical presence — residing with permanent residents

(1.03) Any day during which an applicant for citizenship was the spouse or common-law partner, or child, of a permanent resident referred to in subsection (1.02) and resided with that permanent resident shall be treated as equivalent to one day of physical presence in Canada for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and 11(1)(d).

Canadian Armed Forces — permanent resident

(1. 2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply to a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act who has, subject to the regulations, no unfulfilled conditions under that Act relating to his or her status as a permanent resident and who
(a)  during the six years immediately before the date of his or her application, completed three years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces; and
(b)  has met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of three taxation years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application.

Question 13

Which of the following are among the legal requirements for an adopted child of a citizen to be granted citizenship under the Act?

A) the adoption was in the best interests of the child

B) the adoption  created a genuine relationship of parent and child

C) the adoption  was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen

D) the adoption  did not occur in a manner that circumvented the legal requirements for international adoptions

E) the adoption  was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege in relation to immigration or citizenship

F) all of the above

Answer 13

ALL: These are all requirements under s. 5.1(1) of the Act.

Question 14

Mark has lived in Canada for the past 20 years, where owns a house and small business. His wife and children are all Canadian citizens. In the last few years, he has had to travel back and forth to the U.K. to attend to his mother who is ill. Recently, he applied for citizenship but it turns out he miscalculated and is 2 days short of the 1,095 days of residence required (i.e. 1,093). If the file is referred to a Citizenship Judge, can the Judge grant Mark’s application in her discretion?

A) Yes, if she determines Mark’s place of continual habitual residence is in Canada.

B) Yes, because it is a de minimis shortfall.

C) Yes, if the Judge believes there are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

D) No, a Citizenship Judge does not have the discretion to grant the application.

Answer 14

D: While this type of discretion existed for many years, it was removed following the passage of Bill C-24 in 2015.

Question 15

Rajiv is a PR of Canada who recently renounced his citizenship in the U.S. He relinquished his original Indian citizenship when he became a U.S. citizen. Can he apply for citizenship as a stateless individual?

A) Yes, because he is not currently the citizen of any country.

B) No, because he is a PR of Canada.

C) No, because he voluntarily chose to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

D) It depends on whether he is entitled to regain his Indian citizenship.

Answer 15

D: Further to the FCA, a person is stateless only where, as a legal or practical matter, the person cannot get citizenship or national status elsewhere. Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FCA 139 at para. 23

Question 16

Which of the following individuals may be considered for a special grant of citizenship?

A) An athlete who as a PR has excelled at domestic competition and may represent Canada at the Olympics.

B) A U.N. official who works in conflict zones abroad for most of the year, but whose primary home and family are all in Canada.

C) An individual who has lived in Canada for many years but is stateless.

D) All of the above.

Answer 16

D: Section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act provides the Minister broad discretion as follows:

(4) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, in his or her discretion, grant citizenship to any person to alleviate cases of statelessness or of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada.

While the cases above may not be granted, they can be considered by the Minister per the wording of s. 5(4).

Question 17

Naruhito is a 16 year old permanent resident of Canada. He has lived in Canada for the last 8 years. He became a PR as part of the application of his parents who are also permanent residents who spend a majority their time working abroad. During the school year, Naruhito resides primarily at his school dormitories at a private boarding school. Is Naruhito entitled to apply for citizenship?

A) Yes, under s. 5(1) of the Act if he has met his residence and other requirements.

B) Yes, under s. 5(2) of the Act if he has met his residence and other requirements.

C) No, because neither of his parents are Canadian citizens.

D) No, because neither of his parents meet the residence requirements and cannot include him as part of their application.

Answer 17

A: Following Bill C-16 in 2017, minors can now apply for citizenship without a Canadian parent, as the age requirement for citizenship has been removed under subsection 5(1). A person having custody of the minor or empowered to act on their behalf by court order, written agreement or operation of law, can now apply for citizenship on behalf of the minor.

This may be beneficial in myriad circumstances such as if the minor has more residence in the Canada than the parents; for example, if they have spent time living with relatives in Canada or in boarding school while parents are abroad. Counsel may also consider this option if there are hurdles to obtaining the parents’ citizenship, such as a prohibition stemming from a prior criminal conviction or an active investigation. In certain circumstances, if minors have applied with parents and that application is suspended under s. 13.1 of the Act, counsel may consider filing a separate application for the minors.

B is not the correct answer. Under s. 5(2) of the Citizenship Act, a legal guardian who is not a Canadian citizen may apply for citizenship on behalf of the minor child but Canadian citizenship can only be granted if one of the parents (natural or adoptive) is already a Canadian citizen.

Question 18

Can an individual who was born outside of Canada and living outside Canada who is registered under the Indian Act apply for Canadian citizenship?

A) No, they must first apply for permanent residence and then reside in Canada for at least 1,095 days as a PR.

B) No, they must first reside in Canada for at least 1,095 days.

C) Yes, they are entitled to apply for Canadian citizenship and then come reside in Canada.

D) No, they are entitled to reside in Canada, but must apply for permanent residence and meet the same requirements in order to apply for citizenship.

Answer 18

B: For the purposes of assessing whether a registered Indian who is applying for a grant of citizenship meets the requirement to be a permanent resident as provided in paragraph 5(1)(c), 5(2) or 11(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act,

the date the applicant was admitted to Canada as a registered Indian should be used as the equivalent of the date the person became a permanent resident (landing date);
(if the applicant was registered as an Indian after their entry into Canada) the date of registration should be used as the equivalent of the date the person became a permanent resident.

There is no requirement to apply for permanent residency. This process is deemed to be authorized under paragraph 2(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act, which states that “a person who is lawfully present and entitled to permanently reside in Canada is deemed to have been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.”

Question 19

Anna is a citizen of Canada residing in Mexico City. For the past 10 years, she has been looking after her nephew, Miguel, since his parents passed away when he was 12 years old. Most recently, Anna has decided to return Canada and has adopted Miguel under the laws of Mexico. Is it possible for Miguel to be granted citizenship?

A) No, because Miguel is 20 years old and is too old to be granted citizenship based on adoption.

B) No, because the adoption was not done in accordance with Canadian laws.

C) Yes, because Anna was residing in Mexico at the time of the adoption.

D) No, because Miguel was not a minor at the time of the adoption.

Answer 19

C: Pursuant to s. 5.1(2) of the Citizenship Act adult adoptions may qualify for citizenship if (a) there was a genuine relationship of parent and child between the person and the adoptive parent before the person attained the age of 18 years and at the time of the adoption; and

(b) the adoption meets the requirements set out in paragraphs 5.1(1)(c) to (d). This includes the fact the adoption must have been in accordance with the laws of the country where it took place and where the citizen was residing. In the immediate scenario, the adoption took place in Mexico where Anna was residing and it appears there is has been a genuine relationship of parent/child for many years. Notably, the question asks if it is possible for Miguel to be granted citizenship, as these as well as other sometimes subjective factors would have to be assessed by IRCC.

Question 20

Which of the following requirements cannot be waived by the Minister on compassionate grounds?

A) Whether an adult has adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada

B) Whether an adult demonstrates in one of the official languages of Canada that he or she has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship

C) Whether an adult meets the requirement respecting length of physical presence in Canada

D) Whether a minor meets the requirement respecting length of physical presence in Canada

Answer 20

C: Pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Citizenship Act, the requirement respecting length of physical presence in Canada can only be waived for minors on compassionate grounds, not adults.

Question 21

Joel’s citizenship application was recently refused based on a finding that he misrepresented or withheld material circumstances relating to a relevant matter, namely by failing to disclose a prior criminal conviction on his application. For how long is Joel prohibited from applying for citizenship?

A) Five years

B) Four years

C) Ten years

D) Until his criminal conviction his pardoned or received a record suspension

Answer 21

Five years: Pursuant to s. 22(1)(e.2) of the Act, an individual is prohibited from applying for citizenship for a period of five (5) years after their application is refused based on a finding of misrepresentation under s. 22(1)(e.1). Note, this penalty is unrelated to any prohibition related to the criminal conviction itself in this case. Note also that the prohibition doubles to ten (10) years if the misrepresentation is discovered after citizenship has been granted and citizenship is revoked for that reason. Therefore, the penalty differs depending on at what stage the misrepresentation is discovered and acted upon by IRCC.

Question 22

Two years ago, Sally was convicted in Canada of a drug related offence punishable by way of indictment under the Criminal Code. Five months ago, Sally was charged in Ireland with a similar offence that if committed in Canada could constitute an indictable offence; the charge has yet to be adjudicated. Which of the following is true?

A) Sally can apply for citizenship and ask the Minister for compassionate consideration to overcome her prior criminal history given that they were non-violent offences stemming from a drug addiction, for which she has since successfully completed an extensive rehabilitation program.

B) Sally can ask the Minister for compassionate consideration to overcome the charge in Ireland but not the Canadian conviction.

C) Sally can ask the Minister for compassionate consideration to overcome the Canadian conviction but not the charge in Ireland.

D) Sally cannot ask for any compassionate consideration under the Citizenship Act as s. 25 of the IRPA does not apply.

Answer 22

B: Section 22(1.1) of the Act specifically provides for a potential waiver from the applicability of section 22(1)(b.1) on compassionate grounds. This also serves to highlight how little discretion the minister is allowed with respect to the application of all other provisions regardless of any possible humanitarian factors and unlike the wide latitude afforded by s. 25 of IRPA.

Question 23

Jo-Ann recently received a negative decision on her citizenship application. She is seeking your advice as to her available options of appealing or challenging the decision. What option is available to her?

A) She can file an appeal with IRCC to have the case considered by a Citizenship Judge.

B) She can file for judicial review in Federal Court within 15 days.

C) She can file for judicial review in Federal Court within 30 days.

D) She can file an appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the IRB.

Answer 23

C: Pursuant to s. 22.1 of the Act, she has 30 days to file for judicial review from the date she was notified or made aware of the decision (practically, counting from the date of the decision itself is the safest option unless there is a major discrepancy). Note, that this differs from the 15 days timeline under the IRPA and the two should not be conflated. There is no appeal option with the IRB. The IRB does not have jurisdiction over citizenship matters and there is no formal internal appeal with IRCC. While consultants do not practice in Federal Court it is important to know these possibilities and the timelines therefor so as to be able to properly advise clients of their available options.

Question 24

For how many years is an individual prohibited from applying for citizenship after being convicted of an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament?

A) Four years after the completion of the sentence imposed

B) Four years after the date of conviction

C) Five years after the date of conviction

D) Five years after the date of the offence

Answer 24

B: Pursuant to s. 22(2) of the Act, an individual must not have been convicted of an indictable offence in the four years prior to their application for citizenship. The clock starts from the conviction date not the date the sentence is compete, which is one important way the Citizenship Act differs from IRPA.

Question 25

For how long can the Minister suspend a citizenship application to receive any information or evidence or the results of any investigation or inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the applicant meets the requirements under the Act?

A) For up to 6 months

B) As long as is reasonable

C) As long as is necessary

D) Indefinitely

Answer 25

C: Under the prior version of the Act, the Minister could only suspend an application for up to 6 months under certain circumstances (see the cases of Stanizai and Magalong referenced in your readings). However, with the enactment of Bill C-24, s. 13.1 of the Act allows suspension “for as long as is necessary”, which was intended to afford the Minister broad latitude and has been interpreted as such by the Courts. However, Courts have also held the language does not allow indefinite suspension as it must still be limited to some extent by what is reasonable in the circumstances (see Gentile v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 452).

Question 26

Vuong was convicted of an indictable criminal offence five years ago, for which he received a two-year term of imprisonment and is currently on probation. When can Vuong apply again for citizenship?

A) Voung can apply now since it has been more than four years since the date of the his conviction.

B) Vuong can only apply four years after the completion of his sentence.

C) Vuong can apply when his probation is complete.

D) Vuong must first receive a pardon or record suspension.

Answer 26

C: While Vuong is prohibited from applying for citizenship under s. 22(2) for four years after the date of conviction, there is a separate prohibition to applying for citizenship while still on probation or parole under s. 22(1)(a) of the Act. Note also that unlike under IRPA, a record suspension is not required in order to cure an inadmissibility for a Canadian conviction.

Question 27

Mark was convicted of a securities related offence in the United States two years ago, which could be treated as an indictable offence if committed in Canada. However, since that time, Mark was able to receive a full and unconditional Presidential Pardon, that completely sets aside the punishment for the federal crime. Assuming he meets all other requirements, is Mark now eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship?

A) Yes, because he received a full foreign pardon that extinguished his conviction in the jurisdiction where he was convicted, further to the U.S. Constitution.

B) No, because the Presidential Pardon is not the same as a Court expungement.

C) No, because he is prohibited regardless of whether he was pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence.

D) Yes, because the Presidential Pardon has the effect of erasing the conviction as it never existed.

Answer 27

C: Further to s. 22(3) of the Act, and individual is prohibited from citizenship for a period of four years if the person has been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament, regardless of whether the person was pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence. This is one of the ways in which the Citizenship Act differs and diverges from admissibility in the immigration context under the IRPA.

Question 28

Joe applied for citizenship one year ago. At the time he submitted his application and when it was received by the IRCC, he was fully eligible for Canadian citizenship. His application was subsequently approved and he is scheduled to take his oath of citizenship next week. Yesterday, he was charged for robbery under s. 343 of the Criminal Code of Canada, but he has not yet been convicted or had his first hearing. Can Joe proceed to take the oath of citizenship as scheduled?

A) Yes, because he was fully eligible for citizenship at the time his application was submitted and approved; it is therefore locked in.

B) Yes, because he has only been charged and has not been convicted of any offence.

C) No, because he has been charged with an indictable offence under the Criminal Code.

D) Yes, because the Minister may suspend his application but has not done so.

Answer 28

C: Pursuant to s. 22(6) of the Act, a person shall not take the oath of citizenship if they never met or they no longer meet the requirements for the grant of citizenship. Section 22(b) prohibits anyone from citizenship who is not just convicted but also “while the person is charged with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal” relating to an indicatable offence under an Act of Parliament.

Question 29

Recently, Amir’s counsel received a procedural fairness letter regarding Amir’s citizenship application, which requested additional documents to corroborate Amir’s residency. Amir has indicated that he does not have any further documents and directed his counsel to simply ignore the request and not respond within the 30 days provided or at all. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?

A) Amir’s application will be decided on the basis of the information and evidence available.

B) Amir’s application will be refused.

C) Amir’s application will be suspended.

D) Amir’s application will be declared abandoned.

Answer 29

D: Pursuant to s. 13.2 of the Act, it is most likely Amir’s application will be declared abandoned for failure to respond to the Minister in the time requested. Even if Amir responds but states that he is not providing the documents requested, the Minister may still declare the application abandoned unless Amir and his counsel provide a sufficient reasonable justification for being unable to produce the documents at issue (see Zhao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 207). This is different and potentially worse than a refusal because the Minister will not attempt to make a decision as to residency based on the information and documents already provided, which could then be subject to judicial review on the reasonableness of the analysis.

Question 30

Dina lived in Canada as a permanent resident for ten years working for Bell Canada. In 2014, she was sent abroad to Greece for a one-year work assignment. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada in 2015, she was convicted of a criminal offence by way of indictment and served a term of imprisonment of one year followed by one year parole. When, approximately, is the earliest she can apply for citizenship?

A) 2019, four years after she was convicted

B) 2021, four years after she completed her sentence

C) 2020, four years after she completed her term of imprisonment

D) 2020, assuming she has acquired three years (1095) days of residency in the last five-year period

Answer 30

D: Dina’s prohibition under s. 22(2) of the Act will expire four years after her conviction, by 2019. However, under s. 21, she cannot count her term of imprisonment or parole time (2015-2017) as part of her residency calculation. Accordingly, she must wait until at least 2020 to accumulate sufficient residency days, counting back five years not including her imprisonment and parole.

*After 2019 she can apply, not that she can start counting, she can start counting after 2017

Question 31

Svend has received a notice of revocation pursuant to s. 10 of the Citizenship Act. In what circumstance is he entitled to a Federal Court hearing?

A) If the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required

B) If Svend requests a hearing in Federal Court within 60 days

C) Unless Svend requests the Minister decide the case

D) Only if the Minister seeks a declaration that Svend retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the IRPA

Answer 31

C: Pursuant to s. 10(4.1) of the Citizenship Act the Minister shall (i.e. must) refer the case to the Court under subsection 10.1(1) unless Svend requests that the case be decided by the Minister under s. 10(3.1)(b).

This is a right that counsel fought for and was granted under the Bill of Rights in the precedential Houssana decision, and was incorporated into the Act following subsequent amendments under Bill C-6.

Note, option (a) above can be misleading since that language comes directly from s. 10(4). However, the ‘hearing’ being referred to in that section is with respect to an oral hearing before a Minister’s delegate in making a determination in cases where the individual has opted to task the Minister with rendering a final determination in light of all substantive considerations as well as personal circumstances.

Question 32

Which of the following is not among the requirements for a renunciation of citizenship?

A) Is a citizen of a country other than Canada or, if his application is accepted, will become a citizen of a country other than Canada

B) Is not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20

C) Is not a minor

D) Is not prevented from understanding the significance of renouncing citizenship by reason of the person having a mental disability

E) Does not have any outstanding tax obligations under the Income Tax Act

F) Does not reside in Canada

Answer 32

E: Section 9 of the Act does not make tax obligations a consideration or prerequisite for the renunciation of citizenship. This is perhaps because such debts, accrued while a citizen, can likely still be collected or pursued by the CRA even if citizenship is later renounced. The remainder of the options are all requirements under s. 9.

Question 33

Miranda is a Canadian born citizen who moved to the United States after marrying a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen over 30 years ago. Approximately 20 years ago, Miranda renounced her Canadian citizenship after obtaining U.S. citizenship since she lived primarily in the U.S. and wanted to limit her tax liability. Five years ago, as Miranda has been nearing the end of her career, she bought a second house in Canada and obtained PR status (after being sponsored by her husband) with the goal of eventually returning to Canada for retirement. During this time, she has maintained her PR residency requirement by living with her husband in the U.S. who has always maintained his Canadian citizenship. Last year, Miranda filed her taxes in Canada and has spent the last two summers living in her home in Canada. Is Miranda eligible to apply for a resumption of citizenship?

A) Yes, because she obtained PR status and has no outstanding obligations under that status

B) No, because she has not resided in Canada for at least 365 days out of the last two-year period

C) No, because she has not resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days in the last five-year period

D) No, because she only filed her income taxes last year and not for the last two (2) year period

Answer 33

B: By residing in Canada for just the last two summer periods, Miranda could not have accumulated the 365 days over the last two years required for the resumption of citizenship pursuant to s. 11(d)(i) of the Act. Notably, this is distinct from the 1,095 day requirement for regular citizenship applicants. In all other respects, she appears to have met the requirements for resumption, including the fact she is a PR and filed taxes in Canada as required during year prior as required by s. 11(d)(ii).

Question 34

What is the standard of proof required for revocation of citizenship?

A) Reasonable grounds to believe

B) Beyond a reasonable doubt

C) Balance of probabilities

D) More than a mere suspicion

Answer 34

C: Pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Act, the standard of proof required for revocation is a finding on a balance of probabilities, which means “more likely than not.” Notably, this is the standard required in civil suits, and is more stringent than “reasonable grounds to believe” used in parts of the IRPA. However, it is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in the criminal context.

Question 35

Which of the following requirements for the renunciation of citizenship can the Minister waive on compassionate grounds in his or her discretion? (select all that apply)

A) Is a citizen of a country other than Canada or, if his application is accepted, will become a citizen of a country other than Canada

B) Is not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20

C) Is not a minor

D) Is not prevented from understanding the significance of renouncing citizenship by reason of the person having a mental disability

E) Does not reside in Canada

Answer 35

D & E: Pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Act, the Minister may on waive on compassionate grounds the requirement that the individual not be residing in Canada, and not be prevented from understanding the significance renouncing citizenship due to a mental disability. There is no waiver for the other requirements.

Question 36

Which of the following is not a ground that can lead to revocation of citizenship?

A) False representation

B) Directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material circumstances

C) Fraud

D) Knowingly concealing material circumstances

Answer 36

B: Direct or indirect misrepresentation is the test used under s. 22(e.1) of the Act with respect to prohibitions for misrepresentation. This mirrors s. 40 of the IRPA. However, this is not the test or the grounds upon citizenship may be revoked under s. 10 of the Citizenship Act, which includes false representation, fraud, and knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Question 37

Sal is scheduled to begin a hearing in Federal Court on the allegation that he obtained citizenship through false representations under s. 10 of the Citizenship Act. Which of the following are among the elements the Minister must demonstrate?

A) Sal made the false representations intentionally

B) Sal would not have obtained citizenship but for the false representations

C) The representations were false

D) The false representations were material

Answer 37

A, C and D: Further to the Federal Court decision in Savic listed in this week’s readings, the mens rea of an intent to mislead is required for a revocation decision under s. 10 of the Citizenship Act. This is a significant way in which this provision differs from misrepresentation under s. 22(e.1) of the Act or s. 40 of IRPA. Furthermore, the Minister must demonstrate that the representations were in fact false (which may be contestable in some cases) and that they were material inasmuch as they could have affected the process or averted avenues of inquiry. However, the Minister does not have to demonstrate that they would have necessarily resulted in the refusal of the citizenship application or that Sal wouldn’t have been granted citizenship but for the false representations.

Question 38

Mark recently had his citizenship revoked for having knowingly concealed material circumstances under s. 10(1) of the Act. For how long is Mark prohibited from applying for citizenship?

A) Ten (10) years

B) Four (4) years

C) Five (5) years

D) Forever, unless a discretionary waiver is granted by the Minister.

Answer 38

A: Pursuant to s. 22(f), he is prohibited from re-applying for citizenship for ten years. Note, this is twice the length of the five-year period for which he would have been barred under s. 22(e.2) if his misrepresentation had been discovered before he was granted citizenship.

Furthermore, he barred forever from applying for resumption under s. 11 but not for a regular grant s. 5(1).

Question 39

Babak is a dual citizen of Canada and Iran. He first immigrated to Canada as a Permanent Resident when he was a minor in 2001. In 2005, the family all became citizens. In 2010 as part of actions he took with a group of friends, he was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. Which of the following is true with respect Babak’s Canadian citizenship?

A) His citizenship can be revoked because he is a dual citizen and was convicted of a terrorism offence under s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada

B) His citizenship can be revoked because he was convicted of a terrorism offence regardless of whether he is a dual citizen

C) His citizenship can be revoked only after the Minister considers any personal circumstances and a final decision is rendered by the Federal Court

D) His citizenship cannot be revoked

Answer 39

D: Previously, the SCCA (Bill C-24) introduced controversial revocation provisions for those convicted of certain terrorism and national security related offenses committed while they are citizens. These only applied to dual citizens (even those born in Canada) who would not be rendered stateless. These provisions were repealed in 2017 with Bill C-6 on the grounds that revocation (the equivalent of exile or banishment) should not be used as a penalty for offences committed as citizen, regardless of how severe. See this week’s discussion and suggested readings for more information.

Question 40

In relation to the question above, what would be the consequence with respect to Babak’s citizenship if he was convicted of the same offence before he became a citizen?

A) He would be barred from applying for citizenship for four (4) years following the date of conviction.

B) He would be barred from applying for citizenship for four (4) years following the completion of his sentence.

C) He would be barred from applying for citizenship for ten (10) years.

D) He would be barred from applying for citizenship forever.

Answer 40

D: Pursuant to s. 22(4) of the Act, there is a permanent prohibition to citizenship for individuals convicted of such offences. However, there is an exceptional waiver available in the Minister’s discretion under s. 22(5).

Note, these consequences are separate and apart from those that may apply to the individual’s PR status under the IRPA.