Since IRCC updated CIT0014 Scenario 3 in June 2026, what is the current experience of people who hope for AOR on the basis of documents sourced from Ancestry/FamilySearch/etc, along with proof they have ordered the same thing from an "original source authority", with promise to update the submission when the "official" documents are received?

Are these folks still surviving AOR and getting a chance to supplement with the "real" documents once they are received? Or are such submissions just being rejected out-of-hand?

====================

My example case....

My Gen 0 was born in Quebec in the mid 1800s' I have the Drouin copy of the baptism record and I polished up my packet one weekend, intending to mail it on Monday. But wouldn't you know it? That was the same weekend IRCC sent out the many "recall" emails, and decided third party documentation won't cut it.

So I ordered the same things from BanQ but of course I won't hear from them for months.

If I send the packet now, with the Drouin copies, and some screaming red lights flashing proof that I ordered from BanQ and will upload those on reciept......... do you think I'll either (A) pass AOR or (B) just have the whole thing sent back?

So old (19th century and earlier) church baptism/marriage records from Ancestry/Drouin etc are OUT and "original source authority" records are IN...... the original source authority is the church.

So what is current thinking, is a record obtained from the church going to be satisfactory or will that same thing only be accepted if it is from BAnQ instead?

This is the "Kerch Bridge" aka the Crimean Bridge aka Putin's Bridge, in 2018 shortly after it opened. The linked article is from 2018, and describes in lay terms some of the engineering challenges and how the Russians dealt with them.

There are active faults and mud volcanoes here, and sure enough on June 22, four quakes struck nearby, the largest a 4.5

This has led to some speculation that the bridge is taking irreparable cumulative damage, even from these little quakes. Example article from today, https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/earthquakes-are-destroying-crimean-bridge-1782310318.html

Anyone care to speculate about potential damage to the bridge? Actually there are two... an auto/truck bridge and a parallel rail bridge.

Probably just some wishful thinking here.....

Personally, I'm of the opinion IRCC has decided standards used in the past were inadequate, and the "surrender letter" was rushed out the door as soon as they made up their minds about that, and for the purpose of not letting the damage to people's lives get any worse by letting the clock run before they got the word out.

Yes, many who made major life decisions have been harmed and by rushing the boilerplate letter out IRCC put the brakes on this, so the damage doesn't get any worse. I do expect them to do the painstaking work of reviewing all the files, and sending out individualized notices about perceived gaps in the each applicant's documentation. That will be long and slow.

So if I were in charge at IRCC, I might set up the triage priorities something like this

1. Any URGENT requests where there is a demonstrated immediate risk of death or injury (including ICE detention)
2. Any applicant who, on the basis of a recalled certificate, has already made major life choices (e.g., relocation, marriage/divorce, university enrollment, etc), although I'm not sure how they could collect data to make that determination
3. Applicants with recalled certificates who previously or now qualify for URGENT processing
4. All pending applicants with a qualified reason for URGENT processing.
5. All remaining applicants with recalled certificates
6. The remaining queue in chronological order of reception date.

There might be a reason to tweak this I didn't think of, and I have no idea how they are going to proceed. In case you're wondering, I would be the hind end of group 6 if they do something like this

I just started listening to Sandra Burr's 1986 reading of The Valley of Horses by Jean M Auel, produced by Brilliance Audio.

I've played CDs in my desktop drive and also a boom box. Burr's voice sounds like it was digitally reproduced rather than a human, in that bad 1980s digital robot sort of way. I've never listened to her read anything before and don't know what is "normal" for her. Google claims that Brilliance Audio has stuck with human narration, and the package seems to say Burr read this the old-fashioned way - but it doesn't sound normal human to me.

Anyone ?

2013 Mazda three, 120,000

Rolling down the road there is a rhythmic squeak from the front driver’s side. It’s not the brakes, but the noise goes away with slight brake pedal pressure.

Any guesses?

This is very interesting article and includes the hilarious line....

Why Section 3 Is So Difficult to Read

Section 3 of the Citizenship Act is not a clean statement of who is a citizen. It is a sedimentary record of every reform Parliament has layered on since 1947, each preserving the one before it.....

"sedimentary record".... gotta love it..... anyway, yes the firm has a line about offering services, but the article is overall a good education piece worth posting.

I~~'m helping my family prep forms to claim Canadian Citizenship by descent. One of the forms to be completed involves family genealogy data, which we already have in an Excel spreadsheet.~~

The form template is Cit0014.pdf found here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/cit0014.html

With Adobe Acrobat pro, will we be able to tweak that pdf template to assign field names, and in that way reduce errors by executing a merge?

Thanks!

RESOLVED (once we understood the forms it became apparent how to efficiently do this manually)