Was My Mother Deemed a Citizen in 1947 Under Section 5(1)(b)?

[ra2258]

I'm trying to confirm how IRCC is likely to classify my mother's citizenship — specifically, whether she was deemed a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947 under section 5(1)(b) of the original Canadian Citizenship Act.

Key facts:

• My grandfather was born in Canada and served in the Canadian Merchant Marines during WWII.
• My mother was born in Philadelphia in 1937 to my Canadian grandfather and an American mother.
• In 2024, she received a Canadian citizenship certificate with an effective date of January 1, 1947.

From my reading, section 5(1)(b) granted citizenship on Jan 1, 1947 to anyone who was:

“born outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947 and was, on that day, a minor and the child of a person who became a Canadian citizen on that day.”

Since my grandfather was born in Canada and never naturalized elsewhere, I believe he would have become a citizen under section 5(1)(a) — which would qualify my mother under 5(1)(b).

The 1947 effective date on her certificate seems to support this, but I want to be sure: Does IRCC treat this kind of certificate as confirmation that someone was deemed a citizen under 5(1)(b)?

Thanks for any insight or experience — I’m just trying to confirm how IRCC interprets this status.

 

[armoured]

I don't understand the substance of your question - is it somehow relevant whether she became a citizen under 5(1)(b) - as opposed to some other section? She has the citizenship certificate which lists the effective date. She was a citizen as of that date.

Other part of answer to your question (if that's it) seems to me to be - how did she get the certificate? On what basis did she apply?

 

[canuck78]

I'm trying to confirm how IRCC is likely to classify my mother's citizenship — specifically, whether she was deemed a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947 under section 5(1)(b) of the original Canadian Citizenship Act.

Key facts:

• My grandfather was born in Canada and served in the Canadian Merchant Marines during WWII.
• My mother was born in Philadelphia in 1937 to my Canadian grandfather and an American mother.
• In 2024, she received a Canadian citizenship certificate with an effective date of January 1, 1947.

From my reading, section 5(1)(b) granted citizenship on Jan 1, 1947 to anyone who was:

“born outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947 and was, on that day, a minor and the child of a person who became a Canadian citizen on that day.”

Since my grandfather was born in Canada and never naturalized elsewhere, I believe he would have become a citizen under section 5(1)(a) — which would qualify my mother under 5(1)(b).

The 1947 effective date on her certificate seems to support this, but I want to be sure: Does IRCC treat this kind of certificate as confirmation that someone was deemed a citizen under 5(1)(b)?

Thanks for any insight or experience — I’m just trying to confirm how IRCC interprets this status.

What is the actual end goal? Are you trying to see if you qualify for citizenship?

 

[hawk39]

I'm trying to confirm how IRCC is likely to classify my mother's citizenship — specifically, whether she was deemed a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947 under section 5(1)(b) of the original Canadian Citizenship Act.

Key facts:

• My grandfather was born in Canada and served in the Canadian Merchant Marines during WWII.
• My mother was born in Philadelphia in 1937 to my Canadian grandfather and an American mother.
• In 2024, she received a Canadian citizenship certificate with an effective date of January 1, 1947.

From my reading, section 5(1)(b) granted citizenship on Jan 1, 1947 to anyone who was:

“born outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947 and was, on that day, a minor and the child of a person who became a Canadian citizen on that day.”

Since my grandfather was born in Canada and never naturalized elsewhere, I believe he would have become a citizen under section 5(1)(a) — which would qualify my mother under 5(1)(b).

The 1947 effective date on her certificate seems to support this, but I want to be sure: Does IRCC treat this kind of certificate as confirmation that someone was deemed a citizen under 5(1)(b)?

Thanks for any insight or experience — I’m just trying to confirm how IRCC interprets this status.

Citizenship certificates for people born before Canadian citizenship began are dated January 1, 1947 because that is when Canadian citizenship began; prior to that date, there was no Canadian citizenship, only British subject status.

Under the 1947 Act, section 4 is for people born before commencement and section 5 is for people born after. People born outside of Canada before commencement (i.e.: your mother in 1937) became citizens under 4(b) only if 'they had not gotten another citizenship and were either already in Canada as a legal resident or was a minor.' Since your mother was born an American under US law, technically, she would not have been deemed a Canadian citizen under the 1947 Act, but under the 2015 Act.

 

[ra2258]

Thanks to everyone for the responses ( @hawk39 @canuck78 @armoured ) — I appreciate the input and want to clarify what I’m trying to understand.

My mother was born in the U.S. in 1937 to a Canadian-born father. She later applied to IRCC and received a Proof of Canadian Citizenship certificate, with an effective date of 1 January 1947. I understand that this is the standard effective date for many people born before Canadian citizenship began — that’s not the part I’m unclear about. The certificate doesn’t specify which provision of law was used to grant it.

I’m not questioning her citizenship — what I’m trying to understand is: on what legal basis was she granted citizenship, and how does that affect her children’s eligibility?

This matters because I was born abroad too. If IRCC treated her as someone who became a citizen under the original 1947 Act (section 4) — i.e., as someone who gained citizenship in her own right when Canadian citizenship first came into force — then I may count as first generation born abroad, and eligible to apply for proof of citizenship.

But if IRCC instead granted her citizenship under a modern provision like section 3(1)(k) (via the 2009 or 2015 amendments), then she might be classified as first generation born abroad, which would make her children (me and my siblings) second generation born abroad, and possibly ineligible under the first-generation limit.

I’m aware that there’s currently an interim measure allowing second generation born abroad to apply, and we’ll pursue that if needed — but if a straightforward first-generation link is available to us, we’d prefer to proceed that way. That’s why I’m asking.

So my question is: how can I confirm whether my mother was recognized as a “foundational” citizen under the 1947 Act, or as someone granted citizenship later under a current provision like section 3(1)(k)? Does the 1 January 1947 effective date on the certificate always mean section 4 of the 1947 Act was used — or could it still reflect a modern route like section 3(1)(k) being applied retroactively?

I’ve seen mixed interpretations online and want to be sure I understand how IRCC treats these cases, particularly for people born abroad before 1947 who were issued certificates more recently.

Any insight or experience with this would be very welcome — thanks again for helping me sort through it.

 

[canuck78]

Thanks to everyone for the responses ( @hawk39 @canuck78 @armoured ) — I appreciate the input and want to clarify what I’m trying to understand.

My mother was born in the U.S. in 1937 to a Canadian-born father. She later applied to IRCC and received a Proof of Canadian Citizenship certificate, with an effective date of 1 January 1947. I understand that this is the standard effective date for many people born before Canadian citizenship began — that’s not the part I’m unclear about. The certificate doesn’t specify which provision of law was used to grant it.

I’m not questioning her citizenship — what I’m trying to understand is: on what legal basis was she granted citizenship, and how does that affect her children’s eligibility?

This matters because I was born abroad too. If IRCC treated her as someone who became a citizen under the original 1947 Act (section 4) — i.e., as someone who gained citizenship in her own right when Canadian citizenship first came into force — then I may count as first generation born abroad, and eligible to apply for proof of citizenship.

But if IRCC instead granted her citizenship under a modern provision like section 3(1)(k) (via the 2009 or 2015 amendments), then she might be classified as first generation born abroad, which would make her children (me and my siblings) second generation born abroad, and possibly ineligible under the first-generation limit.

I’m aware that there’s currently an interim measure allowing second generation born abroad to apply, and we’ll pursue that if needed — but if a straightforward first-generation link is available to us, we’d prefer to proceed that way. That’s why I’m asking.

So my question is: how can I confirm whether my mother was recognized as a “foundational” citizen under the 1947 Act, or as someone granted citizenship later under a current provision like section 3(1)(k)? Does the 1 January 1947 effective date on the certificate always mean section 4 of the 1947 Act was used — or could it still reflect a modern route like section 3(1)(k) being applied retroactively?

I’ve seen mixed interpretations online and want to be sure I understand how IRCC treats these cases, particularly for people born abroad before 1947 who were issued certificates more recently.

Any insight or experience with this would be very welcome — thanks again for helping me sort through it.

@hawk39 is really the expert but based on my interpretation you’d be 2nd generation born abroad.

 

[ra2258]

@hawk39 is really the expert but based on my interpretation you’d be 2nd generation born abroad.

Thanks — I appreciate your take. That’s definitely possible, and we’ll pursue the interim measure if needed. I guess what I’m still hoping to clarify is how to confirm what IRCC actually determined when they issued my mother’s certificate.

It seems like the 1 Jan 1947 effective date doesn’t necessarily mean it was under the original 1947 Act — some people have received that same effective date even when granted under more recent provisions. So if anyone knows how to confirm what legal route was used in a case like this (where the certificate doesn’t specify), I’d be grateful.

My own (non-expert) logic says she likely qualified under the original 1947 Act, specifically section 4(b), which granted citizenship to those:

“born outside Canada before the coming into force of this Act, whose father was a Canadian citizen at the time of that person's birth (or would have been had this Act been in force), and who on January 1, 1947 was not a citizen of any country other than Canada and was a minor.”

She was born in the U.S. in 1937 to a Canadian-born father, and was 9 years old when the Act came into force — so she clearly met the minor requirement. I understand there’s some debate about the "not a citizen of any other country" clause (since she was a U.S. citizen by birth), but I’ve read that IRCC has often granted citizenship in similar cases — especially when the person didn’t acquire another nationality through naturalization or active choice.

So that’s what I’m hoping to clarify: Was IRCC likely treating her as a “foundational” citizen under section 4(b), or might they have instead used a modern provision like section 3(1)(k) when they issued her certificate? Is there any way to confirm what basis was used?

I would welcome any insight from others who’ve dealt with similar cases. If anyone with deeper experience (like @hawk39 ) has thoughts, I’d be very grateful.

 

[scylla]

Thanks — I appreciate your take. That’s definitely possible, and we’ll pursue the interim measure if needed. I guess what I’m still hoping to clarify is how to confirm what IRCC actually determined when they issued my mother’s certificate.

It seems like the 1 Jan 1947 effective date doesn’t necessarily mean it was under the original 1947 Act — some people have received that same effective date even when granted under more recent provisions. So if anyone knows how to confirm what legal route was used in a case like this (where the certificate doesn’t specify), I’d be grateful.

My own (non-expert) logic says she likely qualified under the original 1947 Act, specifically section 4(b), which granted citizenship to those:

“born outside Canada before the coming into force of this Act, whose father was a Canadian citizen at the time of that person's birth (or would have been had this Act been in force), and who on January 1, 1947 was not a citizen of any country other than Canada and was a minor.”

She was born in the U.S. in 1937 to a Canadian-born father, and was 9 years old when the Act came into force — so she clearly met the minor requirement. I understand there’s some debate about the "not a citizen of any other country" clause (since she was a U.S. citizen by birth), but I’ve read that IRCC has often granted citizenship in similar cases — especially when the person didn’t acquire another nationality through naturalization or active choice.

So that’s what I’m hoping to clarify: Was IRCC likely treating her as a “foundational” citizen under section 4(b), or might they have instead used a modern provision like section 3(1)(k) when they issued her certificate? Is there any way to confirm what basis was used?

I would welcome any insight from others who’ve dealt with similar cases. If anyone with deeper experience (like @hawk39 ) has thoughts, I’d be very grateful.

@hawk39 responded to your post when you originally asked this question a few weeks ago (?). You need to provide the information @hawk39 asked for.

 

[armoured]

@hawk39 responded to your post when you originally asked this question a few weeks ago (?). You need to provide the information @hawk39 asked for.

Key facts:

• My grandfather was born in Canada and served in the Canadian Merchant Marines during WWII.
• My mother was born in Philadelphia in 1937 to my Canadian grandfather and an American mother.

In the other thread, the question from @hawk39 was whether the grandfather was a crown servant when the OP was born.

From the key facts here, the answer would seem to be 'no', or at least unlikely, since service seems to have been in merchant marine 'during WWII' (implying wasn't a crown servant before*, which Philadelphia would reinforce, although not impossible). [If that non-service when born is definitive on the 2nd generation issue, a question on which I have no knowledge.]

*The Canadian Merchant Navy was created in 1939 on the outbreak of war - there was something similar in WWI but wasn't used in between the wars. So if that was only service, wasn't a crown servant in 1937.

 

[ra2258]

In the other thread, the question from @hawk39 was whether the grandfather was a crown servant when the OP was born.

From the key facts here, the answer would seem to be 'no', or at least unlikely, since service seems to have been in merchant marine 'during WWII' (implying wasn't a crown servant before*, which Philadelphia would reinforce, although not impossible). [If that non-service when born is definitive on the 2nd generation issue, a question on which I have no knowledge.]

*The Canadian Merchant Navy was created in 1939 on the outbreak of war - there was something similar in WWI but wasn't used in between the wars. So if that was only service, wasn't a crown servant in 1937.

Wow - I did not know that about the Canadian Merchant Marine - Thanks!

I did confirm with my Mom and my grandparents met when he was a purser on a cruise ship. So no, he was not a crown servant...he was drafted, conscripted or volunteered to serve (as did his brother who was in the Royal Navy).

 

[scylla]

Wow - I did not know that about the Canadian Merchant Marine - Thanks!

I did confirm with my Mom and my grandparents met when he was a purser on a cruise ship. So no, he was not a crown servant...he was drafted, conscripted or volunteered to serve (as did his brother who was in the Royal Navy).

In that case, under current rules, I believe your mother would qualify for citizenship as the first generation born abroad but you would not as the second.

 

[ra2258]

In that case, under current rules, I believe your mother would qualify for citizenship as the first generation born abroad but you would not as the second.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply. One last comment / question to folks...

I know the general rule is: if your parent was born outside Canada, you’re second gen. But I’m wondering if there’s a key exception for people like my mother — born abroad before 1947 to a Canadian-born father, and issued a citizenship certificate with an effective date of January 1, 1947.

From what I understand, that date reflects citizenship by operation of law under section 5(1)(b) of the original Citizenship Act — not descent. IRCC’s Operational Bulletin 476 (2012) stated that persons who became Canadian citizens on January 1, 1947 under sections 5(1)(a) to (e) are considered to have acquired citizenship by operation of law.

So if my mother wasn’t a citizen by descent, would that make me first-generation born abroad under section 3(1)(b) of the current Act?

It’s really subtle... and it may not matter much, since I should have a strong claim as a second-generation applicant.

But if I’m actually first gen, I’d prefer to clarify that now. Thanks!

 

[scylla]

I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply. One last comment / question to folks...

I know the general rule is: if your parent was born outside Canada, you’re second gen. But I’m wondering if there’s a key exception for people like my mother — born abroad before 1947 to a Canadian-born father, and issued a citizenship certificate with an effective date of January 1, 1947.

From what I understand, that date reflects citizenship by operation of law under section 5(1)(b) of the original Citizenship Act — not descent. IRCC’s Operational Bulletin 476 (2012) stated that persons who became Canadian citizens on January 1, 1947 under sections 5(1)(a) to (e) are considered to have acquired citizenship by operation of law.

So if my mother wasn’t a citizen by descent, would that make me first-generation born abroad under section 3(1)(b) of the current Act?

It’s really subtle... and it may not matter much, since I should have a strong claim as a second-generation applicant.

But if I’m actually first gen, I’d prefer to clarify that now. Thanks!

Per @hawk39, I believe this would only apply if your grandfather was a crown servant. Since he wasn't, you are second generation. However I will defer to @hawk39.

 

[armoured]

It’s really subtle... and it may not matter much, since I should have a strong claim as a second-generation applicant.

But if I’m actually first gen, I’d prefer to clarify that now. Thanks!

Has your mother actually spent more than 1095 days in Canada (given that it's just shy of 90 years, not that much)?

[I'm not making comment on your other, subtle point - which I find interesting and quite possibly workable - because I simply don't know.]

 

[ra2258]

Has your mother actually spent more than 1095 days in Canada (given that it's just shy of 90 years, not that much)?

[I'm not making comment on your other, subtle point - which I find interesting and quite possibly workable - because I simply don't know.]

It's close. But we do not know for sure. After my grandfather was killed, they did less and less time there. There were issues with his benefits between my grandmother and his parents. I know his parents wanted to see their grandkids. And that he wanted to make sure my mom got Canadian citizenship but was killed before that could happen.