Can Canadian citizenship by descent flow through adopted ancestor (adoption in 1920)?

[CanadianDriftwood]

I’m trying to determine whether I may have any claim to Canadian citizenship by descent under current law changes, but my family situation involves adoption and a very old timeline, so I’m hoping someone knowledgeable can weigh in.

Here is the family chain:

• My great-grandmother was born in Canada (I am still confirming exact date/place of birth).
• At some point, she moved from Canada to the United States. I do not yet know what year.
• In 1920, while living in the United States, she legally adopted my grandmother. My grandmother (born in US in 1919) was not her biological child.
• My grandmother never held Canadian citizenship papers or a Canadian passport, as far as my family knows.
• My mother was born in the United States in 1947.
• I was born in the United States in 1985.

So the chain is:

Canadian-born great-grandmother
↓
Adopted grandmother (adopted in US in 1920, non-biological child, born in US in 1919)
↓
Mother born in US in 1947
↓
Me, born in US in 1985

My question is:

Under current Canadian citizenship law (including recent changes affecting citizenship by descent / Lost Canadians), is there any possible path to citizenship for descendants when the chain passes through a child legally adopted by the Canadian-born ancestor rather than a biological child?

Or does the fact that the adoption occurred in the US in 1920 and my grandmother never held Canadian citizenship effectively end the possibility?

I realize this is an unusual edge case, but I’d appreciate any insight.

 

[armoured]

I believe the answer is no - I recall reading it somewhere recently but can't off the top of my head say exactly where.

Don't take this as last word, do look into it. But I believe it has to be a clean series of biological links, or at least the adopted individual had to have acquired Canadian citizenship during their lifetime (formally) and biological descent after that.

So as far as I'm aware the only way this could work in your favour would be if your grandmother (biological grandmother to you, that is) had acquired (documented) Canadian citizenship during her lifetime. (And I do not know procedure for that at the specific time, but assume that even if it was possible at the time, that you would know and/or be able to document it - and probably would not have been possible if residing in USA at that time). [Important warning: I'm not sure that even my hypothetical 'works', I'm going by a bit of memory and logic.]

 

[hawk39]

I’m trying to determine whether I may have any claim to Canadian citizenship by descent under current law changes, but my family situation involves adoption and a very old timeline, so I’m hoping someone knowledgeable can weigh in.

Here is the family chain:

• My great-grandmother was born in Canada (I am still confirming exact date/place of birth).
• At some point, she moved from Canada to the United States. I do not yet know what year.
• In 1920, while living in the United States, she legally adopted my grandmother. My grandmother (born in US in 1919) was not her biological child.
• My grandmother never held Canadian citizenship papers or a Canadian passport, as far as my family knows.
• My mother was born in the United States in 1947.
• I was born in the United States in 1985.

So the chain is:

Canadian-born great-grandmother
↓
Adopted grandmother (adopted in US in 1920, non-biological child, born in US in 1919)
↓
Mother born in US in 1947
↓
Me, born in US in 1985

My question is:

Under current Canadian citizenship law (including recent changes affecting citizenship by descent / Lost Canadians), is there any possible path to citizenship for descendants when the chain passes through a child legally adopted by the Canadian-born ancestor rather than a biological child?

Or does the fact that the adoption occurred in the US in 1920 and my grandmother never held Canadian citizenship effectively end the possibility?

I realize this is an unusual edge case, but I’d appreciate any insight.

Based solely on the word usage of the current Citizenship Act, I do not believe an adoptee can claim citizenship the same way as a biological child. Each paragraph under 3(1) that describes children of citizens seem to have been written to differentiate biological and adopted children; paragraph (b), which would be used to describe the most recent cases, has the clearest language:

• "(b) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;"

For your specific case, your great-grandmother is a citizen under 3(1)(k), which says:

• "(k) the person, before January 1, 1947, was born or naturalized in Canada but ceased to be a British subject, and did not become a citizen on that day;"

Your adopted grandmother would then be described as under 3(1)(o), which says:

• "(o) the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who is a citizen under paragraph (k) or (m), and the person did not become a citizen on that day;"

"born ... to a parent" would seem to indicate that the link has to be biological and not adopted.

One could argue that under 2(1), the definition of the word "child" should be used to describe the person in those paragraphs:

• "child includes a child adopted or legitimized in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption or legitimation took place;"

However, given the convoluted verbiage that is often found in law, if that is what was intended, then I believe that it should have been written as "the person, who was born outside of Canada, is a child of a parent ...".

 

[armoured]

For what may be a different (I think?) take on this, see here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...adian-citizenship/act-changes/rules-2025.html

Later down on adopted cases:

"If you were born or adopted before December 15, 2025​

...
Adopted people are likely eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship through a direct grant for adopted people if they were born and adopted outside Canada in the second generation or later before December 15, 2025."

I do not pretend to understand this fully or how to parse the 'second generation' wording (and if that means anything distinct from the 'first generation' in this particular context). I'm only saying that this particular web page seems to imply that adoption in this situation (outside Canada from a Canadian citizen) might indeed lead to a valid claim. (Not definitive wording here either, mind)

This seems quite bizarre to me and I find it hard to believe - the wording in the law laid out by @hawk39 above makes more sense to me, and also the wording in other info pages such as the 'check if you are a citizen' page.

I'm going to see if I can find where I saw the notice that adoptions in the chain do not qualify (perhaps there is wording in the application form and instructions - don't recall).

 

[hawk39]

"If you were born or adopted before December 15, 2025​

...
Adopted people are likely eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship through a direct grant for adopted people if they were born and adopted outside Canada in the second generation or later before December 15, 2025."

I believe applying for a direct grant for the OP's grandmother through this process would make the OP's mother ineligible for citizenship by descent because the mother was born before the grandmother becomes a citizen. Unlike citizenship by descent, a direct grant would confer citizenship on date of application acceptance, not retroactively to the date of birth.

 

[armoured]

I believe applying for a direct grant for the OP's grandmother through this process would make the OP's mother ineligible for citizenship by descent because the mother was born before the grandmother becomes a citizen. Unlike citizenship by descent, a direct grant would confer citizenship on date of application acceptance, not retroactively to the date of birth.

I agree with your interpretation - at least by basic logic - just reporting what the IRCC website says here. (And I think the statement I quoted above is contradicted elsewhere, so I absolutely would not rely upon it)