Appendix. Citizenship

• Author: Raj Sharma/Aris Daghighian
• Pages: 507-523

507

APPENDIX

Citizenship

Outside of the realm of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,1 issues of admis-

sibility, including criminality and misrepresentation, may have a profound effect on

an individual’s ability to acquire and retain Canadian citizenship under the Citizen-

ship Act.2While the two statutes are distinct, they are inexorably intertwined in many

respects. For example, applications for citizenship may trigger investigations to ces-

sate refugee status. Similarly, revocation of citizenship may also lead to the automatic

loss of permanent resident status pursuant to the IRPA, section 46(2). Nevertheless,

there are significant and often subtle differences between how such issues are treated

under each statute and how the law has developed in each domain. While citizenship

law can be its own text, the following sections provide a brief overview of the prohi-

bitions to citizenship, as well as issues surrounding investigations and suspensions.

Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the grounds and procedure for the

revocation of citizenship.

I. Criminality

Pursuant to section 22(3) of the Act, an individual is prohibited for a period of four

years from applying for citizenship if the conviction is equivalent to an indictable

offence under an Act of Parliament:

(2) Despite anything in this Act, but subject to theCriminal Records Act, a person shall

not be granted citizenship under subsection 5(1), (2) or (4) or 11(1) or take the oath of

citizenship if the person has been convicted of an offence under subsection 21.1(1) or

29.2(1) or (2), or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or any other Act of

Parliament, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under theCon-

traventions Act,

(a) during the four-year period immediately before the date of the person’s applica-

tion; or

1 SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

2 RSC 1985, c C-29. Most recently, the Act has undergone significant changes under Bill C-24,

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22[SCCA] in 2014 and under Bill C-6, An

Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, SC 2017,

c 14 in 2017.

© [2022] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

508Inadmissibility and Remedies

(b) during the period beginning on the date of the person’s application and ending

on the date on which the person would otherwise be granted citizenship or take the

oath of citizenship.

Importantly, there are two significant distinctions with the IRPA.

First, unlike in the immigration context, the prohibition runs from the date of the

conviction, not the completion of the sentence. This may drastically alter the length

of prohibition by not adding the length of the sentence on top of the four-year period.

Second, unlike the IRPA, section 36(3)(a), the Citizenship Act does not contain a

provision that deems hybrid offences to be indictable. Accordingly, the Federal Court

has determined that for the purposes of the Citizenship Act, a hybrid offence must be

characterized according to the Crown’s election:

[41] Given that the Crown had expressly elected to proceed summarily in Mr. Ahmed’s

case long before his citizenship hearing, it follows that at the time of his citizenship

hearing, he was no longer facing charges in relation to an indictable offence. As a con-

sequence, the statutory bar contained in paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act did

not apply.3

In Kamara,4the Federal Court clarified that until such time as a Crown election is

made to proceed otherwise, a hybrid offence is deemed to be an indictable offence in

accordance withsection 34(1)(a) of theInterpretation Act.5

In practice, it is possible to request that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Canada (IRCC) hold off making a determination until the Crown has made an elec-

tion on how to proceed. After which, counsel can provide IRCC with the charging

document, or in some cases the Crown may provide a letter or email as to their inten-

tion, which can suffice. The Court in Kamara confirmed that a citizenship judge, and

by extension a deciding IRCC official, has the discretion to delay their decision until

an election is made.6

This is one of the significant ways in which the Citizenship Act differs from the

IRPA on issues of admissibility—counsel should be mindful not to conflate the law

and interpretation of similar issues under both statutes.

Furthermore, pursuant to section 22(1)(a), an applicant cannot be granted citizen-

ship while under a probation order, on parole, or serving a term of imprisonment.

3 Ahmed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2009 FC 672 at para 41.

4 Kamara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 572 at para 24.

5 RSC 1985, c I-21.

6 Kamara, supra note 4 at para 24.

© [2022] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.