u/No_Bobcat_No_Prob

Re-approvals: Minister Diab said earlier in the week that the suspension letter reviews would be completed 'within days' and yesterday we saw some re-approvals go out in the afternoon. We are now up to seven reported yesterday/today (some report including multiple family members), I saw one additional reported elsewhere. This is extremely encouraging news!

Keep them coming, IRCC!

I am not aware of any outreach to any letter recipient requesting additional documentation or other information such as updated citations or explanation for missing documents, so this seems to continue to support the 'incomplete processing by IRCC' theory, at least for now.

We appreciate everyone's cooperation regarding limits on speculation and minimal sharing of misinformation, which we try to address when seen- keep reporting things that don't pass the vibe check.

We had a good discussion yesterday about some misinformation that originated in a FB group, if there is anything else that comes up that we can help talk through, just ask. No shade to our peers on any other platform or in any other sub, moderation and staying ahead of potential wildfires is hard and constant work.

Approvals- The Minister in an emailed statement indicated that application approvals would also be un-paused 'within days'. I haven't seen any yet, and yesterday's approvals post didn't post due to a bug i'm troubleshooting with reddit - if you are approved this week, feel free to post to the main feed. We'll get that scheduled post running again for next Thursday just in time for lots of good news. Optimism!

If you post to the main feed about an approval or re-approval and your post is held by the auto mod for review, please be patient - we'll approve it asap.

There is also user flair for our re-approved members- 'I'm Canadian, AGAIN' - enjoy it if you want it. If suspendees want flair as well to make the wait more bearable through humor just let us know what it should read. Someone below suggested Schrödinger’s Canadian 🏴‍☠️ tell us what you want and we will make it happen.

Canada is playing Morocco tomorrow in the World Cup, 1PM EST - if you're in the US that's a great excuse to stay out of the heat for at least 90 mins. It was 109F/42.7 C 'real feel' in Boston yesterday, hope it feels nicer where you are.

For your amusement, a local weather typo: https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/s/OenrSPmn5C

Please also enjoy the r/Boston automod bot sass

Belated Happy Canada Day 🇨🇦/early Happy Independence Day, 🇺🇸 USA.

If I missed anything, add your q's to comments and we can try to answer them.

Two weeks in a row our Thursday scheduled post has failed with notification subject line "failed to submit scheduled post" - message body "unable to submit post (name of post and date variables).

Last Thursday I updated the scheduled time to see if it would post after that adjustment and it did not. This week the same post failed again and I have not tried to post it manually.

Any idea why this is happening with only one of our 6 weekly scheduled posts?

Creating a place for letter recipients to voluntarily share any information they may wish to if they receive follow up requests or other communication from IRCC, which now seems imminent based on today's announcement made on Facebook and LinkedIn (lol).

Please feel free to share as much or as little as you want, while being sure to redact appropriately to protect your/your family's privacy.

Announcement excerpted below:

"Out of an abundance of caution and to ensure the consistent assessment of eligibility under C-3, this review was then expanded to include approximately 6,500 applications for citizenship by descent under Bill C-3 received to date. This expanded review is now complete.

Out of the 100 identified cases, IRCC automatically reinstated 33 citizenship certificates upon confirming that the applicant met the legal requirement for citizenship.

IRCC is now undertaking next steps with the 67 cases still outstanding. It is worth noting that these outstanding cases represent roughly one per cent of total certificates issued under C-3 to date. IRCC is working diligently to contact these clients directly. IRCC will either confirm their eligibility for a citizenship certificate under C-3, or where needed, ask for additional information to validate their eligibility for citizenship by descent. This process is expected to be complete within a matter of days."

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JSPds8skX/

“Just as ircc interprets c-3, we too must interpret the instructions.”  - InternetName4 

What are the current published document standards for Proof applications?

This new section does not appear in the Guide for Paper Applications for a Citizenship Certificate for Adults and Minors (Proof of Citizenship) under Section 3 (CIT 0001) dated 2025-01-29 – I believe it was first added 6/18/2026 and then the English language version was revised overnight, 6/19/2026.  

“What we accept”  (Italics added by me)

Your application cannot be supported solely by third-party records.

You must include proof of parentage and Canadian citizenship for your Canadian parent, grandparent and parental ancestor as applicable. For each person, you must provide 1 or more of the following documents issued by the original authority:

• provincial or territorial birth certificate
• birth certificate from another country that shows the parent-child relationship in each generation
• Canadian citizenship or naturalization certificate
• Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad or Certificate of Retention of Canadian Citizenship
• British naturalization certificate issued in Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador
• proof of British subject status before January 1, 1947 (or April 1, 1949 for Newfoundland and Labrador)
• proof of landed immigrant status in Canada before January 1, 1947 (or April 1, 1949 for Newfoundland and Labrador)

If you’re missing any birth certificates

If you don’t have a birth certificate or birth record for yourself or for any of your parental ancestors, you must send other documents to show parentage and Canadian citizenship. These must be issued by the original authority and can include:

• hospital record of birth
• record from a physician or midwife who witnessed the birth
• baptismal certificate or record (including copies or certified records)
  • The baptism must have taken place within a reasonable time after the birth.
• census records
• boat manifest

If you can’t provide official documents issued by the original authority

• Explain in writing why you can’t provide the documents, and
• Show proof that you tried to get them
  • For example, emails or letters with issuing authorities or confirmation saying that the records are not available

The following is consistent with earlier versions of the Guide:

Documents issued in Quebec

We do not accept birth certificates and marriage certificates issued in Quebec before January 1, 1994 in support of an application for a citizenship certificate.

If you need to replace your Quebec birth or marriage certificate because it was issued before 1994, contact the office of the Directeur de l’état civil du Québec.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0001-application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors-proof-citizenship-section-3.html

Did IRCC just change their document standards?

The TL,DR: We don’t think so.  

The timing of the update is curious, but we think the intent was to align the published guidance with the list of “evidentiary standards... use[d] to verify each generational link, including cases where civil birth records are missing and alternative evidence is accepted” as described in part (d) Parliamentary testimony back in May.  Some of the language is identical.

In my opinion, this actually broadens rather than restricts the acceptable document types- for example, I can recall a sub member saying that IRCC refused a genealogical copy of a birth record because it appeared to be a hospital record of birth, and the agent said they couldn’t accept that document type.  The revised list explicitly includes them.

Also, were thrilled to see 5 rapid re-approvals of suspended certificates last week (around June 20th). None of the applicants had any outreach from IRCC or provided any additional documentation to IRCC. One of the re-approved applications was dependent on a mix of US and Canadian census records for their Gen0, along with an email chain from BAnQ that proved that they tried to obtain other records for that ancestor but could not.

We see this as reassuring evidence that IRCC is not retroactively applying different document standards to applications. We do think it's highlighting the need for applicants to carefully document their research efforts (including dead ends) and ensure citations for digital records refer back to "source" or "original authorities" whenever possible. Several Canadian attorneys were also quick to point out that there were statutory reasons why IRCC could not change standards retroactively without running afoul of the law.

What was the hubbub about certified baptismal records all about, then?

For about 24 hours the English language Guide stipulated a “certified baptismal certificate or record”.   IRCC then rephrased: “baptismal certificate or record (including copies or certified records)”

I personally don’t think that this means that IRCC no longer wants certified baptismal records for ancestors born before civil registration of birth from applicants who have them available to them.  IRCC has requested certified copies routinely from applicants from the beginning of the interim measure period (Jan 2024) through the present, and with the several requests for DEC records instead for certain QC ancestors, I don’t think we see much indication that their preference for certified records is diminishing.

What I think the language indicates is that if you cannot obtain a certified record, you should explain why, and IRCC may accept your explanation and the non-certified version.  

Do I have to provide exactly these listed document types in support of my application?  Is this an exhaustive or exclusive list?  

No.  Importantly, this also applies to the language in the previous version of the CIT 0014 Checklist, to the updated CIT 0014, and to the language in the Guide:

Quoting Attorney A. Heyer: *“*The language used in IRCC’s own forms is also important. Terms such as “for example,” “such as,” and “include” generally signal that a list is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Indeed, in Thompson [a case referenced in Heyer’s blog post], Justice Lafrenière specifically examined similar wording and concluded that applicants were entitled to understand those examples as representative rather than exclusive.”

Is it good enough if I download and cite a baptismal record that’s in the digital collection of an “original source authority” like BAnQ instead of ordering the paper certified record?/Do you think if I tell IRCC that obtaining a BAnQ record was a financial hardship they will accept that as an explanation for why I don’t have it?

I don’t think we know enough yet to say.  Those of you who choose to submit a digital record, please report back about your experience.

What does IRCC mean by “official documents issued by the original authority”? 

quoting u/Pr0nxz who tried to make sense of this all last week after document revision 1:

Documents from "original issuing authorities" are sourced from the official bodies either in direct possession of the official records, or in stewardship of their archive. For example of a qualifying document: a digitized, microfilm scan, or physical copy of a birth certificate (certified or otherwise) received from either a vital records department, or from the government's officially designated archival sources.

Documents from "third party sources" include not only evidence manufactured by individuals such as family trees or written allegations, but also otherwise official documents uploaded by individuals to sites such as \Ancestry.com or FamilySearch. An example of a "third party source document" is a photocopy scan of a birth certificate uploaded by an individual to FamilySearch; there is no guarantee from an "original issuing authority" that the document is authentic.

IRCC also publishes an operational bulletin called: Decision making: Standard of review and process for making a reasonable decision - thanks to u/Weekly-Exit8092 for surfacing this

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/decision-standard-review.html#standard-proof

Determine the evidence’s probative value (weight)

When an officer is determining the probative value of evidence, they are assessing the capacity of that evidence to establish the fact that it is trying in prove...

When reviewing a document to determine its probative value, consider the following:

• How directly does it relate to the issue?
• Is it the best document available?
• Has it been issued by an objective authority?
• Has it been issued by a person or an entity that has the authority to issue the document in question?
• Has it been issued by a person or an authority that has no vested interest in the outcome?
• Is it either the most recent document or the document closest in time to the event being asserted?
• Does the issuing authority have a history of reliability?
• Is the information in the document verifiable?
• What were the circumstances under which the document was created?
• Who is the author (for example, qualifications, expertise, reputation) and what is the source of the information?
• To what extent is the document based on observable facts or opinion?

Note: Duplicates and photocopies are admissible and are to be treated as originals unless there is doubt as to the authenticity of the original, in which case the original can be requested for examination.

Keep these questions in mind as you search for documentation and, for those lucky enough to have multiple documents for an ancestor, as you select what to include in your application packet as ancestral documentation.

What about the records on Ancestry that *are* the official digital repository through partnership with LAC or NARA?

We think that if you carefully cite those census and other records that are on the Ancestry platform through agreements like the US National Archives Digitization Partnership, that will be sufficient- you do not need to order certified census records, although you can order them from NARA if you want to.  You will get a b&w printout with a ribbon and seal on it. Unfortunately it isn’t a higher quality image or color image, at least in my experience.  LAC appears to be directing requestors to their digital archive, but will issue Certified copies if necessary.

Read more about the Ancestry/NARA partnership in  this post by u/ ConsciousCoconut7964 

Some states also have digital archive partnerships with Ancestry or Family Search, such as:  

MA https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/archives/collections/vital-records.htm

(Are there more?  Please tell us!)

Do I need certified records?

Yes, and no.  Many, but not all birth certificates are certified by default- meaning there is a seal and a signature, and often an attestation that the copy is true to the original as recorded by the “original authority” or “source authority”.   

We think that IRCC strongly prefers the most unimpeachable records that you can provide, and the easiest thing for them to review and approve are likely certified records – if they are available to you.  They may not be, for a variety of reasons.

Remember that IRCC wants only high quality color photocopies/scans unless otherwise requested, such as if an agent requests an original for examination during application processing.

Anecdata alert: In another sub I saw one report of someone unable to produce a birth certificate for an ancestor who was asked by IRCC to provide two alternative documents to document their birth. So if you have a similar circumstance, it may be an "emerging best practice" to include two alternative documents along with documentation of your search efforts to explain the missing "gold standard" document. 

As Successful-Citron321 rightly pointed out, this may be something requested of folks who submit anything that is not a birth certificate or record, including a baptismal record.

What should I do if a certified document exists but is not available to me (for statutory or other reasons)?

If they are not available to you, but geneological copies or digital archival versions are:  you must include good citations linking back to an “original source” or current “source authority” and you should include a written explanation for why they could not be obtained. 

If it would take a court order or similar to obtain a certified record, document that with your submission. IRCC may agree that that is a reasonable explanation for not being able to submit the certified version. We have seen geneological copies come under scrutiny because the current 'source authority' wasn't named on the copy. Sometimes a town or locality is easier to work with than a state archive, and issued something different than the state would, such as a geneological copy on letterhead.

Thanks to u/JmcIntosh1650 for pointing out the following important language in the Guide, toward the bottom:   Helpful reminders

To avoid your application being returned to you make sure that you:

provided a letter of explanation for any documents that are missing, not included or require further clarification with your application (i.e. birth certificates that have been changed or replaced).

(For length I did not include all bulleted items, see the Guide for the full list)

Okay- but can’t IRCC change their document standards if they want to?

What we understand from several published opinions by Canadian lawyers, and MP Kwan's open letter to Minister Diab is: if IRCC were to assess applications based on standards published after they were submitted, that may be unlawful.

“The Federal Court has repeatedly emphasized that applicants are entitled to rely on clear guidance provided by government departments. It would be fundamentally unfair for IRCC to retroactively impose evidentiary expectations that were not clearly articulated at the time applications were submitted and assessed.”  - MP Jenny Kwan

Additionally, I cannot imagine that anyone at IRCC wants to add further complexity to application processing by having one standard that applies to applications received before x date and a second standard for applications received after that date.

What is this “balance of probabilities” I have heard people mention regarding application processing and approval?

This was also described in part (d) of the same Parliamentary testimony

“The decision-maker must assess the application in its totality, consider all evidence provided, and must be satisfied on balance of probabilities that a claim to citizenship by descent is founded before an application can be approved. When a decision-maker is not satisfied, a proof of citizenship application will be refused.”  

I sent my application prior to the revised guidelines and included supporting records from Ancestry/another website. What should I do now?

If all of your documents included citations back to the "original authority" you should be OK - if they didn't, this would be a good time to update your citations to make it clear where IRCC can find them in the source authority's digital archive. Similarly, if you didn't include a written explanation for missing primary documents (which has long been in the Guide) this is probably a good time to write and submit something using the webform.

Has the sub seen any application refusals to date?

Only three that I’m aware of, and, of those, none had an ancestor born in Canada.  One reapplied successfully with better documentation of their naturalized ancestor.  One plans to do the same and we think they will also be successful.

We can’t say with certainty that all applications based on an ancestor born in Canada will be approved, but if you can document them in a reasonable fashion using the best documents available to you, I think you have a good chance of approval.

Happy Friday- we're glad you're here!

It's been a tumultuous couple of weeks, and the mod team has been asked to give an update about "what we know" regarding the letters and the updates to the Guide.

Document standards- the suspension letter language suggested that IRCC might be trying to retroactively apply higher standards of documentation to applications received and even approved in the past. That did look to be the case ever so briefly on the 18th when the Guide to Paper Applications was updated and stipulated "certified baptismal records" as a standard for about 24 hours. That was then edited out overnight on the 18th/19th. Thanks for u/Naps_are_rad for catching that almost immediately. Our French speaking sub members indicated that the French language version had never stipulated "certified" so I think we can chalk that up to a typo. Oops.

We were thrilled to see 5 rapid re-approvals of suspended certificates, none of the applicants had any outreach from IRCC or provided any additional documentation to IRCC. One of the re-approved applications was dependent on a mix of US and Canadian census records for their Gen0, along with an email chain from BAnQ that proved that they tried to obtain other records for that ancestor but could not.

We see this as reassuring evidence that IRCC is not retroactively applying different document standards to applications. We do think it's highlighting the need for applicants to carefully document their research efforts (including dead ends) and ensure citations for digital records refer back to "source" or "original authorities" whenever possible. Several Canadian attorneys were also quick to point out that there were statutory reasons why IRCC could not change standards retroactively without running afoul of the law.

At present I believe we still have 19 or 20 outstanding suspended sub members. (Let us know if you want new flair for this indignity.) You can read through the Suspension Letter Megathread for their information, including dates received. I believe the 19th was the most recent date a letter was received, although some letters regarding passports followed.

The letters also received great press coverage, including members of Canadian Press (David Baxter and Kyle Duggan) asking direct questions of Minister Diab and PM Carney, respectively, during press conferences. We also had a terrific open letter posted by MP Jenny Kwan asking for answers. MP Kwan put out another statement this morning looking for accountability and transparency. (Search or scroll, all of these things are posted to the main feed and tagged with "surrender letter" flair)

Don Chapman and his team are also working quietly in the background (for now) with letter recipients.

We're deeply grateful for this advocacy!

We did see two application approvals yesterday, one group reported receiving their certificates on 6/25, the other received their approvals on 6/13 - much needed good news- but these may be the last we see for a while, as Minister Diab stated that there is a current pause on c-3 based approvals.

The silver lining (if we look hard for one) may be that we finally see some movement for our long suffering Gen1's stuck in PSU, whose eligibility for citizenship has been established for the better part of two decades (since c-37 passed).

We don't have much new information- but we don't seem to be alone. There was a podcast earlier in the week by several prominent immigration attorneys and they also said that they were as in the dark as we are. I've also been browsing other adjacent subreddits to see if anyone there has surfaced info we haven't seen here. The consensus is that we're all impatiently waiting.

We have not seen any evidence that application submissions are paused, but we'll keep our eye on AORs and see if we see trends there.

Anecdata alert: In another sub I saw one report of someone unable to produce a birth certificate or baptismal record for an ancestor was asked by IRCC to provide two alternative documents to document their birth. So if you have a similar circumstance, it may be an "emerging best practice" to include two alternative documents along with documentation of your search efforts to explain the missing "gold standard" document. As Successful-Citron321 rightly pointed out, this may be something requested of folks who submit anything that is not a birth certificate or record, including a baptismal record.

We have long noted that IRCC has displayed a strong preference for certified primary records, including certified baptismal records (when relevant and available to an applicant), even if this has never been articulated as a strict requirement. I think that remains a best practice. More to come with the wiki update.

We are now editing the wiki revision about document standards, hoping to get that out over the weekend or early next week - and when it is posted we'd love your thoughts and feedback to make sure that we get our best practice guidance right.

If I missed anything here, let me know- and the other mods or myself will try to comment.

You did it! You really did it!!

You jumped every last genealogical and documentation hurdle, dotted every i and crossed every t, and were so careful with matching the specs for your charming photo - and now the IRCC has bestowed its official blessings on your work and sent your Canadian Citizenship Certificate to you.

This weekly thread is a space to announce and celebrate your achievement: you (or the person you have been helping) is the newest recognized citizen of Canada.

You can also discuss details of what you included with your application packet so that the newest newbies can learn from your success.

**APPROVALS ONLY** - random /off topic comments will be removed.

A sub member recently asked the mod team about adding some additional guidance to the wiki specific to these groups. We recently gained more insight into situations like documenting Legal Parent at Birth for same sex couples, and there were some questions and clarification about the types of documentation needed by IRCC for trans applicants, so those are in queue (although if anyone wants to write the wiki content for that section based on personal knowledge please do!).

What else would be helpful to capture or clarify in the wiki/FAQs?

This is where we'd love to get your feedback, and, if you want to offer both a question and answer suggestion based on your firsthand knowledge, we'd be grateful.

If you have a question that others might know how to answer, ask those here as well.

If you don't want to comment publicly, feel free to also submit wiki suggestions using the form hyperlinked at the bottom of every wiki page.

Thanks!

Editing to add- please send suggestions to modmail and not mods individually - as Gen z says: RIP my inbox after this week.

Since the story of these letters broke, we have seen a steady stream of speculation about the reason for the letters. I, on behalf of the mod team, am asking nicely for the speculation to pause. Immediately.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that someone new posted today to acknowledge that they also received the letter, and commenters piled on and blamed them for the suspension to the degree that the OP deleted the post.

This is absolutely unacceptable behavior from members of this community and it has to stop, NOW.

Two individuals who participated in that are now permanently banned.

You will be next if you also behave in that manner.

We have seen zero evidence that any of the letter recipients did anything incorrectly, or are in any way to blame for having their certificates suspended and the applications placed under review. Zero, nada, none.

All evidence that we can point to so far suggests that the issue is that IRCC identified a number of applications that were not completely processed before approval.

We don't know the circumstances or the details yet.

Until we do, please be thoughtful. If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.

If you want people to continue to share their experiences here FOR YOUR BENEFIT, you must treat them with basic respect and consideration.

We are also asking people to stop aggressively arguing that IRCC wants all documents certified before submitting. This is easy to dispel as misinformation because there is only one record type explicitly requested as certified: a certified baptismal record.

We are planning a wiki update soon to capture some of the new guidance and answer FAQs, we will ask for your feedback then as well to make sure we get it right.

Everyone: drink some water, take a moment, be kind to each other.

This is a community, and if you aren't here to support other members you are welcome to show yourself quietly out.

Ty

Editing to add: locking this post because some of you cannot follow directions.

We're seeing a big uptick in questions about supporting documentation for Proof of Citizenship Applications, so I wanted to reiterate what the IRCC guidance says.

The CIT 0014 checklist is linked below. I'm also going to quote below from Saturday's blog post by Amandeep Hayer, Principal of Hayer Law, Immigration and Citizenship. (We have a no solicitation rule, this is not endorsement or recommendation for their services, it's just information.)

As a layperson I think the post Bill C-3 Suspension Letters – What is this about? is well written and valuable as it provides some insight from the legal perspective on the letter content, and also specifically discusses the IRCC's published guidance for Proof applications. It was posted here Saturday but I think many have missed it, and it may be reassuring.

" The checklist (CIT 0014) does not limit applicants to documents issued by a vital statistics agency. Under Scenario 3, applicants are instructed to provide evidence of efforts made to obtain source documents. The checklist also identifies several forms of acceptable evidence to establish a parent’s Canadian citizenship, including:

• A provincial or territorial birth certificate;
• A Canadian citizenship certificate;
• A Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad or Certificate of Retention of Canadian Citizenship;
• A British naturalization certificate issued in Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador; or
• “Any other evidence” that the parent is a Canadian citizen.

That final category is particularly significant.

The checklist expressly permits “any other evidence” demonstrating that a parent was a Canadian citizen. Scenario 4 and Scenario 5 of the same checklist provide examples of alternative forms of evidence, including:

• Landed immigrant documents;
• Marriage certificates; and
• Immigration records from another country.

If IRCC intended to restrict applicants exclusively to records issued by a particular government authority, one would expect the checklist to say so.

The Federal Court has repeatedly emphasized that applicants are entitled to rely on the instructions provided by IRCC.

In Thompson v. Canada, 2021 FC 914, Justice Lafrenière held:

This principle was recently reaffirmed in Somers-Edgar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 417 (where we represented the plaintiffs). In that case, Justice Grant observed that it would have imposed no burden on the Department to clearly articulate what was required of applicants.

The language used in IRCC’s own forms is also important. Terms such as “for example,” “such as,” and “include” generally signal that a list is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Indeed, in Thompson, Justice Lafrenière specifically examined similar wording and concluded that applicants were entitled to understand those examples as representative rather than exclusive.

For that reason, there is a strong argument that applicants who submitted alternative evidence expressly contemplated by IRCC’s own guidance should not later be told that their citizenship certificates were issued in error solely because they did not provide a particular category of source document."

There was also recent Parliamentary testimony https://www.ourcommons.ca/written-questions/45-1/q-1009?response=14112403&section=ircc&expandquestion=true

(d) for the applications reported in (a), what criteria, including evidentiary standards, does the government use to verify each generational link, including cases where civil birth records are missing and alternative evidence is accepted (for example, baptismal records, census records, naturalization documents) as permitted under Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada guidance?

Applications must be accompanied by proof of Canadian citizenship for the Canadian parent, grandparent, or parental ancestor, such as:

•  Provincial/territorial birth certificate, or
•  Canadian citizenship/naturalization certificate, or
•  Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad or Certificate of retention of Canadian Citizenship, or
•  British naturalization certificate, issued in Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador
•  Country-specific birth certificate, displaying the name of the Canadian grandparent(s) AND proof that at least one of the grandparents is a Canadian citizen, or
•  Proof of acquisition of British subject status (pre January 1, 1947 or April 1, 1949 for Newfoundland and Labrador), or
•  Proof of landed immigrant status in Canada (pre January 1, 1947 or April 1, 1949 for Newfoundland and Labrador).

Clients must also provide a written account of the parental ancestor’s birth with as many details as possible and any supporting documentation available when applying for a citizenship certificate.

In the absence of a birth certificate or birth records, any evidence that the applicant has that reflects the parental relationship should be submitted for consideration and may include:

•  hospital record of birth;
•  record of physician or midwife who witnessed the birth;
•  baptismal certificate (event must have occurred within a reasonable time after the birth);
•  census records;
•  boat manifest.

The decision-maker must assess the application in its totality, consider all evidence provided, and must be satisfied on balance of probabilities that a claim to citizenship by descent is founded before an application can be approved. When a decision-maker is not satisfied, a proof of citizenship application will be refused. 

...

This is the first time I've see anything about a "written account of the parental ancestor's birth" - has anyone here had IRCC request this of you during processing?

...

Thanks also to u/JmcIntosh1650 for pointing out the following important language in the CIT 0001 Guide for Paper Applications toward the bottom:

Helpful reminders

To avoid your application being returned to you make sure that you:

answered all questions, or wrote “N/A” (not applicable) on the application form for any question or section that is not applicable to you

returned all original Canadian citizenship/naturalization certificates previously issued to you and any pink transmission copies that you still have

agree to delete and destroy all digital and printed copies of your current e-certificate upon submission of your application for a replacement

included high quality colour copies of two (2) pieces of personal identification one of which must have your photo on it

included your citizenship photo(s) according to the appropriate citizenship photograph specifications included high quality colour copies of requested documents, their translation(s) and an affidavit by the translator for any documents that are not in English or French

provided a letter of explanation for any documents that are missing, not included or require further clarification with your application (i.e. birth certificates that have been changed or replaced).

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-0001-application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors-proof-citizenship-section-3.html

We do not provide legal advice here. However, if you see additional analyses of the letters by other legal professionals that add to the perspective in the post shared above, please share them below or send to modmail.

The checklist: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/cit0014.html

At time of this post the checklist has a December 2025 publication date ...

(It is my personal opinion that the administrative reviews may be taking place because one or more agents were not following procedure and asking applicants to disclose what efforts they went through to obtain a record from any given original source before submitting a copy from a different source- such as those uploaded to Ancestry or similar. Only time will tell if my hot take is even close to correct. Hopefully we will know more soon.)

Coming on the heels of some confusing and upsetting news, and knowing that our weekly Optimism post is taking the week off - I think it is a great opportunity to take a moment to celebrate our supportive and helpful community!

This thread is where you can give the members you find most helpful their 🌹flowers🌹

Has someone helped you find the impossible? Or talked you through application anxiety? Shout them out here!

I personally want to acknowledge the other members of the mod team for being amazing. u/Dougunderwater and NanoSpace for all of the work managing and maintaining the spreadsheet,

• and I want to specially thank

u/pomegranate4311 for their tireless help fielding questions in the weekly pinned posts - we see you, and thank you!

There are so many more great sub members and volunteers, let's shout them out. No kindness or assistance is too small to note, don't be shy.

If you have received a 'surrender letter' like those described here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/s/uJAHl9SoV0

Or here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/s/dr9bYXISns

And you would like to help the mods information gather, would you please post information for us?

Approximate AOR, Approximate Approval date

Whether Urgent Processing was requested

Generation of applicant (g1, g2, g3 etc)

If you had a key document that could not be obtained, did you submit anything explaining why it was not included in your packet?

Please list the docs you submitted Include the province/state/locality and year issued

For each document list the source: Government office, ancestry or other online source, a book, etc?

Sender name, time and date stamp of e-signature

I think if we can get more data we might be able to see a pattern.

Please keep general discussion on the other threads on this topic.

Don't panic, we're all in it together and we are here to support each other.

Ps- if anyone else received this letter with different text please share the text that is unique.

Appreciate you all!

Editing to add- a sub member has volunteered to do some cybersecurity analysis for us by looking at email headers to try to verify the sender was IRCC - please see this post for more information if you are willing to share info with them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/s/CuwpCCI3A5

We updated the wiki FAQ to clarify the information about vital records from Quebec. Posting to socialize the updates and make sure they are seen, as we have seen a lot of misinformation in discussion recently about what is required by IRCC. Hope this helps.

Fact checks or additions made in the comments here will be gratefully incorporated! Let us know anytime if you have additional suggestions for wiki refinement - use mod mail to ensure we see it.

Background

Quebec began its civil registry of births in 1926 when the Le Directeur de l'état civil (abbreviated in this subreddit as DEC) was established.  The DEC started recording marriage records in 1960.  Full civil registration of birth, marriages and deaths in Quebec only began Jan 1,1994.  That is not a typo.

Prior to civil registration, religious entities (such as parishes of the Roman Catholic Church) were the principle and often only place where these important vital records events were recorded. Parishes would periodically send a copy of their records to the prothnotary of the local courthouse.

Today, all pre-1900 prothnotorial records are archived by one of the nine regional branches of the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BANQ).

All post-1900 birth, marriage and death records are held by Directeur de l'état Civil (DEC). 

IRCC Guidance

The CIT0001 instructions state: Documents issued in Quebec - We do not accept birth certificates and marriage certificates issued in Quebec before January 1, 1994 in support of an application for a citizenship certificate. If you need to replace your Quebec birth or marriage certificate because it was issued before 1994, contact the office of the Directeur de l’état civil du Québec.

Based on this instruction and what we have seen subreddit members report, we believe that birth or marriage certificates issued by DEC after Jan 1, 1994 are required for births and marriages occurring in QC between 1900-present.

If you search the sub by keyword ("DEC") you can read more specifically about what applicants have reported and the various pathways to getting a record issued or re-issued by DEC. 

If your relevant ancestor was born before 1900 in Quebec their baptismal or other religious record of birth is generally accepted as proof of birth for the Proof process. The Drouin collection is useful for finding digital versions of these records.  You can find transcriptions of the records from 1621 through 1850 1861 in the Programme de Recherche en Demographie Historique database (PRDH-IGD) of the Universite’ de Montreal. 

Once you have the record citation and relevant information (parish location, parish name, date, type of record, relevant parent and child names, etc.) you can use that information to request a certified color copy of the original record from BANQ.  If you are an English speaker, you can follow the steps in the linked post to submit your order request using BANQ's French language order form.       

Do I need a certified baptismal record, or is the one I find online OK?

IRCC has historically shown a preference for certified copy of the baptismal record for Gen0 (source: many interim measure applicants were asked for a certified copy during application processing).  If you opt to not order a certified record from BANQ, you may want to be prepared to do so if IRCC requests it from you. 

Have people been approved without a certified baptismal (or any religious birth record at all) for Gen0?

Yes- IRCC is "consistently inconsistent" - and appears to make decisions based on an overall preponderance of evidence. Ultimately only IRCC can say what's "enough" for any given application- and we're here to try to give you the best info we can crowdsource to help you prepare your own successful application.

Good luck!