last week there was a new consolidated spreadsheet tracker that was really easy to understand. I can’t find it anywhere and when I click the link on the Facebook group it says “404 not found”
Does anybody know what happened to it?
There is an applicant on the Facebook group reporting in a post today that they were sent to PSU, and their recently obtained ATIP notes say: “Other Sub Type Description: Multi-gen Post Confederation July 1 1867"
Their ancestor was born just before confederation, but lived in Canada after confederation.
Is it possible IRCC is now sorting applications based on when an ancestor left Canada?
This seems to stack up with the “pre-confederation hold on all files” email we know that went out to that adoption applicant.
I’ve stayed up most of the night reading about this and trying to understand and research the angle IRCC could be taking. By now, many of you have seen the recent email circulating in the community where an IRCC officer accidentally let the cat out of the bag regarding paused applications. Here is the exact message the applicant received:
"This email is with regard to the two adoption applications associated to your claim. I wanted to email you with an update on the paused files. We are still holding any file where the Gen 0 was born prior to Confederation. As Joseph was born in 1860, the two adoption files are still on hold. I will contact you again when we have clear instruction on how to evaluate pre-confederation files."
Even though this specific email was sent to an applicant navigating an adoption application, we can infer that this policy applies universally to all citizenship by descent files. The officer specifically noted that they are holding "any file" where the anchor ancestor was born prior to 1867 confederation date, pointing to a system wide administrative flag rather than an adoption specific rule. The hold was triggered purely by the anchor's 1860 birth year. Whether an application is filed through biological descent or adoption, both paths rely on proving that the original anchor was a valid Canadian citizen capable of transmitting status. If IRCC is questioning the legal validity of a pre-1867 anchor, every single deep-lineage application tied to that era is affected.
A common argument raised against IRCC placing an 1867 cutoff is that Canadian citizenship as a legal concept didn't exist until the 1947 Citizenship Act. And in The Act all British subjects born in Canada before 1947 were looked at as citizens retroactively at the time. And this is true. But an argument against that is that act and those conversion provisions built into s. 3(1) existed for the time, and they were likely not intended to be applied universally 100s of years prior into pre-confederation for the purpose of modern citizenship by descent. That is also not how citizenship by descent works around the world when reaching back generations. It’s important to note that almost all countries that recognize citizenship by descent generally trace claims back to the founding of the sovereign state itself, not to the date when the specific term "citizen" was codified into statute and how that applied back in the day. Italy didn't have modern Italian citizenship in 1861 because inhabitants were subjects of the monarchy, yet 1861 remains the strict baseline for Italian claims. Poland didn't legally exist for over a century, yet its baseline relies on the restoration of state sovereignty in 1920. Canada became a distinct sovereign entity on July 1, 1867. The 1947 Act didn't invent status out of thin air, it simply formalized citizenship for people who were already British subjects with direct legal ties to the Dominion of Canada.
The real issue likely facing IRCC isn't just whether an ancestor was born before 1867, but whether that ancestor actually lived in Canada after Confederation. If a great-great-grandparent was born in Lower Canada in 1855, but their family moved to the United States in 1862 and never returned, that individual was simply a British colonial subject who left before the Dominion of Canada (modern Canada) ever existed. They were never a subject residing in modern Canada, nor were they alive and in Canada on January 1, 1947. Standard international practice requires an ancestor to have been alive and residing in the territory when the sovereign state was formed. What I think is that IRCC has likely realized that opening claims to pre-1867 ancestors who permanently left prior to Confederation without a baseline to follow creates a massive legal runaway train that Parliament never intended with this legislation.
For those that have pointed out that we have seen approvals in the past that defied this 1867 cutoff. We have. But I would argue that it is very likely that IRCC simply let those completed cases slide rather than try to revoke certificates for IRCC’s mistake . Revoking citizenship that has already been lawfully issued creates a massive administrative and legal nightmare, as we dove into with surrender letters. The difference with the surrender letters for evidentiary requirements is IRCC put the burden of the mistake back on the applicant (rather than themselves). Even though we all know that was BS. it seemed like a strategic legal move to shield themselves while they figured these other questions out as well. Many of these suspensions were revalidated after the backlash as well, just due to the nature of how it looked on the department and likely the potential legalities. I’ve said from the start of all it that there had to be something deeper going on behind the scenes, and I think this email yesterday proves it
So I don’t know if we can use these early approvals to gauge what to expect with this process anymore, it’s seeming more and more like these early approvals likely slipped through because individual processing officers were approving (primarily urgent) files without a standardized top-down guidance regarding pre-Confederation anchors. Now that higher ups in IRCC have stepped in to freeze these files, IRCC is trying to establish a firm legal baseline. Analyzing approvals and where things go from here over the next 6 months to a year are what will answer a lot of these questions
So all in all this information certainly explains the broader pause we have seen across the community since mid-June. Operational staff on the ground simply do not have policy guidelines to adjudicate mid-19th-century records, but they realize the runaway train it could be if they do, so IRCC higher ups have clearly ordered a blanket freeze while they work out the legal technicalities. I definitely do think the department is trying to draw a hard line at Confederation to prevent citizenship from acting as an endless ancestral heirloom for families with no post-1867 ties to Canada. I would bet that once they receive formal clarification on this 1867 technicality, IRCC will move forward on the remaining queue under clear, standardized guidelines. While this is tough news for applicants relying on early 19th-century ancestors who migrated early, it gives us a clear answer as to why processing has ground to a halt and where the process is likely heading in the coming months.
I think we should remember we are still in the “Wild West” of Canadian citizenship by descent. IRCC is still figuring things out as they go, just as we are. It’s not to say there won’t be legal battles if they take create a legal baseline at 1867, I just don’t know that the courts would uphold it because the original purpose of C3 was never pre-confederation lineages to begin with.
This morning I came across that MP Brad Redekopp of Saskatchewan has been publicly pushing back against Bill C3 this last week on social media, alluding to it being a potential loophole that will interfere with Canada’s elections.
At this point it doesn’t mean a whole lot, it frustrates me, but sharing because it’s an important thing to be aware of. Not all in Canada think this new law is great.
Hey everyone,
I’m a newly recognized Canadian citizen this year. My partner is currently waiting for their citizenship to be recognized as well, which will likely take a little over a year at this rate. But that’s fine because that aligns with our timeline to officially make the move up to Canada.
Here’s my current dilemma: My 2017 Audi just completely crapped the bed and needs thousands of dollars in work. it’s not reasonably fixable. I’m ready to just buy a brand new 2026 version of the car. it’s the last model year of this design that we love. So I want to do it now
But I really want to buy it in Canada for two reasons:
Canada gets a specific sport package/spec on the car that we don't get in the US that I really want, and I actually found a dealer in Toronto (not far) that has one on the lot.
If I buy a US-spec model now and import it next year when we move, Audi will void the warranty completely. among other import headaches.
The problem is, we still have about 6 months to a year of living in the US (back and forth) before the official move.
In the US, we have a loophole where people set up a Montana LLC to buy and register vehicles out-of-state with no residency requirement. I have done it myself. Does Canada have any sort of equivalent “loophole”? for lack of a better word. Could I buy the car now from the Canadian dealer as a citizen, register it under a provincial LLC or business entity, drive it for next 6 months to a year on Canadian plates, and then already have it legally already registered in Canada when we officially move? It would be one less thing to deal with later on.
Has anyone else dealt with buying a Canadian vehicle before actually establishing residency there?
I wish the timing was better but cars always die when you need them to last the most!
With the latest procedural fairness letter details, and as others have pointed out, IRCC’s reference to s. 3(1)(d) for an ancestor born in the early 1800s is VERY interesting.
It got me wondering: do we know of anyone who has been reinstated where their Canadian-born ancestor actually left what became Canada before July 1, 1867? I’m not talking about someone who was simply born before 1867—I mean an anchor ancestor who emigrated before Confederation. I’m genuinely asking because it might be a useful data point. IRCC has been fairly vague throughout this process, which is likely given the legal implications they need to be sure of. It feels like there are still pieces of the puzzle we don’t have.
Early on, I remember some members of the legal community suggesting that Confederation (1867) could be a meaningful legal anchor point because that’s when Canada and its constitutional framework came into existence. That theory largely faded as we saw approvals involving ancestors born and emigrated well before 1867. However, after the surrender letters and the recent procedural fairness letters referencing whether the anchor ancestor would have become a person described under s. 3(1)(d) , I can’t help but wonder whether there is still some significance to whether the ancestor remained in Canada through Confederation. I know there is another pending surrender letter for a G9 applicant with a lineage going back to an ancestor born around 1730, that the applicant is still waiting to hear last I read.
I’m not saying this is how IRCC is interpreting the law. I’m simply questioning whether there’s a pattern we’re missing? Does anyone have examples that either support or completely disprove this theory? The more real world data we have the better
At this point most of us who also use Facebook are aware that the large public Facebook group was permanently shut down per a message from the creator effective July 5th. There are many other threads about why, you can look them up. But here are some Facebook group options for those interested in groups on that platform:
Canadian Citizenship by Descent: Welcome Home. This one is run by a lawyer. So just be aware of that. it is also public
https://www.facebook.com/groups/914270927897477/
Canadian Citizenship by Descent Bill C-3 Support and Community. This one is private so you have to answer questions to get in. Seems to have a similar helpful vibe to the now closed group, and seems to be where many in the Facebook community of the closed group are flocking to and carrying on:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/154168899371277
Genealogy Help for Canadian Citizenship by Descent. This group is public and seems geared towards assisting with genealogy and record searching.