Between 1977 and 2010 solely 63 folks had their citizenship revoked. In July, 2011, Jason Kenney, then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“Minister Kenney“), introduced that as many as 1,800 Canadians might be stripped of their citizenship as a result of they obtained their citizenship fraudulently. The 1,800 people had been recognized following a three-year investigation by the RCMP, different police forces and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
On September 9, 2012, Minister Kenney introduced that the quantity of people that would probably have their citizenship revoked had risen to three,100, with an extra 11,000 folks beneath investigation. An Entry to Data Act request revealed that a lot of the Canadian residents who had been the topic of investigations had been initially from the next international locations.
By the tip of 2012, the method of revoking these peoples’ citizenship had already begun.
Finally, after Federal Court docket litigation and a change in authorities, citizenship revocations proceed at a fee a lot smaller than it appeared would happen, however greater than earlier than.
In 2021, 7 folks had their citizenship revoked. In 2022, it was 25.
Part 10 of the Citizenship Act
The authority of the Authorities of Canada to strip folks of their citizenship is legally supplied for by s. 10 of the Citizenship Act, which states:
Revocation by Minister — fraud, false illustration, and many others.
10 (1) Topic to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister might revoke an individual’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is happy on a stability of chances that the particular person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false illustration or fraud or by knowingly concealing materials circumstances.
Discover
(3) Earlier than an individual’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship could also be revoked, the Minister shall present the particular person with a written discover that
(a) advises the particular person of his or her proper to make written representations;
(b) specifies the shape and method through which the representations should be made;
(c) units out the particular grounds and causes, together with reference to supplies, on which the Minister is relying to make his or her determination; and
(d) advises the individual that the case might be referred to the Court docket except the particular person requests that the case be determined by the Minister.
Representations and request for determination by Minister
(3.1) The particular person might, inside 60 days after the day on which the discover is distributed, or inside any prolonged time that the Minister might enable for particular causes,
(a) make written representations with respect to the issues set out within the discover, together with any issues respecting his or her private circumstances — reminiscent of one of the best pursuits of a kid immediately affected — that warrant particular reduction in gentle of all of the circumstances of the case and whether or not the choice will render the particular person stateless; and
(b) request that the case be determined by the Minister.
Consideration of representations
(3.2) The Minister shall contemplate any representations obtained from the particular person pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(a) earlier than making a call.
Some people suppose that they’ll misrepresent their method to everlasting residency, inform the reality when making use of for citizenship, receive citizenship, after which by no means have to fret in regards to the penalties of the misrepresentations that led to them acquiring everlasting residence. Part 10.2 of the Citizenship Act makes it clear that this isn’t the case, and states that:
Presumption
10.2 For the needs of subsections 10(1) and 10.1(1), an individual has obtained or resumed his or her citizenship by false illustration or fraud or by knowingly concealing materials circumstances if the particular person grew to become a everlasting resident, throughout the which means of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Safety Act, by false illustration or fraud or by knowingly concealing materials circumstances and, due to having acquired that standing, the particular person subsequently obtained or resumed citizenship.
The burden of proof on the Authorities of Canada to determine fraud beneath s. 10 of the Citizenship Act is a “excessive diploma of likelihood.” In different phrases, it’s larger than the “stability of chances” commonplace in civil instances, however decrease than the “past an inexpensive doubt” commonplace in prison legislation.
The check for establishing fraud beneath s. 10 of the Citizenship Act is much like that of misrepresentation for everlasting residency. The Authorities of Canada doesn’t must show that had a person been truthful through the utility course of then his citizenship utility would have been rejected. Fairly, because the Supreme Court docket of Canada confirmed in Brooks, 1974 S.C.R. 850, the federal government solely has to indicate that a person gained entry to Canada or obtained Canadian citizenship by knowingly concealing materials circumstances which had the have an effect on of foreclosing additional inquiry.
A misrepresentation of a fabric truth amounting to fraud beneath the Citizenship Act consists of stating an untruth, withholding of fabric data, or offering a deceptive reply. In assessing the materiality of the knowledge hid, regard is held to the importance of the undisclosed data. Not like with misrepresentations in buying everlasting residency, fraud is not going to end result the place there’s merely a technical transgression of Canada’s immigration legal guidelines. Moreover, harmless misrepresentations is not going to end result within the revocation of citizenship (not like in everlasting residency, a hotly contested space). Willful blindness, nonetheless, can lead to fraud beneath the Citizenship Act (Phan, 2003 FC 1194).
Intention to Deceive, Willful Blindness and Recklessness
In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahendran, 2024 FC 30, Justice Southcott reiterated that not like with misrepresentation within the immigration context, misrepresentation for citizenship revocation functions requires an intention to decieve. This intent can manifest as both a direct intention to mislead, willful blindness, or recklessness. Willful blindness imputes data to somebody whose suspicion is aroused to the purpose the place they see the necessity for additional inquiries however intentionally select to not make these inquiries. Because of this if the Defendant had any suspicion in regards to the contents of the paperwork and selected to not learn them to keep away from understanding the reality, it might be thought of willful blindness. For recklessness to be established, there should be proof that the Defendant was conscious of the danger or hazard of signing the paperwork with out understanding their contents and nonetheless proceeded.
Proof
In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jozepovic, 2021 FC 536, the Federal Court docket of Canada dominated that the disclosure guidelines of the Supreme Court docket of Canada in Stinchcombe apply in citizenship revocation proceedings.
The Court docket acknowledged:
It’s plain from these statements that the appliance of the Stinchcombe rules is just not restricted to prison proceedings or proceedings through which part 7 of the Constitution applies. It’s additional obvious from the reasoning of the Federal Court docket of Attraction that the figuring out issue as as to whether or not the Stinchcombe commonplace of disclosure applies is to not be present in arbitrary characterization of the proceedings as “prison”, “administrative” or “skilled disciplinary”, however on the seriousness of the implications of the proceedings on the non-public rights, status, profession and standing locally of the accused. It’s unarguable that the implications of the declarations sought by the Plaintiffs on this matter are grave certainly. Whereas they might not have interaction the Defendant’s part 7 rights, the accusations towards him are much more critical than any of the acts {of professional} misconduct alleged towards the accused in Sheriff, Legislation Society of Higher Canada v Savone, 2016 ONSC 3378, Re Pope 2011 IIROC 23 and Howe v Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, [1994] O.J. No 1803, and through which it was held that the Stinchcombe rules had been triggered. The implications of being declared a warfare prison or of getting dedicated crimes towards humanity would, in and of themselves, be devastating to anybody’s private status and standing locally. The lack of Canadian citizenship is much extra consequential to an individual’s means to work and pursue a profession in Canada than the lack of knowledgeable accreditation. To the extent, the declarations sought are a prelude to potential deportation proceedings, the implications are even nearer to these of prison proceedings than to disciplinary proceedings. The Court docket can not see how the reasoning of the Federal Court docket of Attraction in Sheriff wouldn’t apply within the current circumstances.
Then What Occurs?
The revocation of Canadian citizenship doesn’t result in automated deportation. If a person’s entry to Canada was lawful, however the particular person obtained citizenship unlawfully, then revocation causes the particular person to revert to everlasting resident standing . It doesn’t particularly jeopardize the appropriate of the particular person to stay in Canada.
Nevertheless, if an individual’s citizenship is revoked as a result of the particular person entered Canada by false illustration, fraud, or knowingly concealing materials circumstances, then the person might be reportable beneath part 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Safety Act and could also be faraway from Canada and not using a proper of enchantment to the Immigration Attraction Division.
In Gucake v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 123, Madam Justice Elliott dominated that as a result of removing is just not automated, then citizenship revocation officers don’t want to contemplate the consequence of removing when figuring out whether or not to revoke somebody’s citizenship.
Private Circumstances vs. Hardship
In Adambawa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 662, Madam Justice Tsimberis reiterated that “private circumstances” is distinct from “humanitarian and compassionate issues.” Delegates, when encountering humanitarian and compassionate issues, contemplate overseas hardship as a result of it’s within the context of an enchantment of an inadmissibility dedication that has resulted in a removing order. In the meantime, a call to revoke Canadian citizenship doesn’t entail a requirement to go away Canada, neither is it an inadmissibility discovering or a removing order. As such, the Federal Court docket has discovered that consideration of overseas hardship is irrelevant beneath subsections.
Equally, the Federal Court docket discovered {that a} revocation determination is just not the suitable time for consideration of one of the best pursuits of kids within the occasion of removing and that private circumstances that might warrant reduction from revocation of citizenship aren’t circumstances which come up from an applicant’s profit of building themselves in Canada beneath unlawful circumstances.
In Parvez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 705, nonetheless, Affiliate Chief Justice Gagné dominated that as an incapacity to work flows from the citizenship revocation course of, officers should contemplate the bests pursuits of the kid when a lack of employment impacts them.
In Bapari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 211, Justice Roy held that in assessing “private circumstances” and weighing them towards a misrepresentation that it’s unreasonable to require {that a} citizen present that “extenuating circumstances” for the misrepresentation.
