You have mentioned here that the charges themselves make it prohibition. Does a hybrid offence prosecuted as a summary charge make it a prohibition in the citizenship application?
With a summary charge of this kind he should be able to give an oath for citizenship, right?
Unless the Crown has made an election to proceed with a summary charge, being charged with a hybrid offence constitutes a prohibition.
It is almost certain that if there is a summary
conviction, that conviction in itself does not constitute a prohibition.
Remember, however, if probation is imposed, that constitutes a prohibition for as long as the individual is on probation. And if it is a summary conviction for a hybrid offence for which the punishment can be ten years imprisonment or more, when prosecuted by indictment, that meets the definition of inadmissible for serious criminality.
Less certain, but as best we know, as observed in the other discussions, when the Crown has made an
official election to proceed with a summary offence (this will be a matter of record in the court case) that means the charge itself, while still pending, does not constitute a prohibition.
By the way, at the risk of
getting out over my skis so to say (I know rather little about formal criminal procedures in the Canadian justice system, let alone how it goes in actual practice), I think that this election is effected by the filing of a formal "
information," which is the formal charging document for a summary offence; it is quite possible that the decision to proceed on a summary charge is
informally,
unofficially made, known, and understood by the parties (Crown and defendant, or at least the defendant's lawyer), well before a formal information is filed. Which means the charge will continue to constitute a prohibition during that period of time. . . which again, illustrates the importance of having a good lawyer involved, and a lawyer who understands the implications for immigration and citizenship.
I do not recall what details in the OP's situation, or other information, prompted me to comment that the charges referenced in the above discussion constituted a prohibition (noting that I often peruse other posts, discussions, and sources, doing some homework, before posting a response). That said, revisiting that discussion it appears I may have made a mistake, or at the least was not clear. As usual, I have excuses. Among my excuses, as illustrated by how often I refer to what I do not know in our other discussion, and how emphatically I repeat
this is Lawyer-UP stuff, meaning
Lawyer-Up in regards to BOTH the criminal AND immigration aspects, is I am trying to balance what I (and participants in the forum generally) do not know, with sharing as much as we can about what is known, recognizing the seriousness of these charges (even if ultimately the penalties imposed in the criminal case are not all that severe) and the imperative to deal with the situation straight-up.
As I have said often, my
admonitions to Lawyer-Up are not a dodge; this really is not amateur-hour stuff, and make no mistake,
I am an amateur. Obviously, I think it is worth discussing at length, since I do, but again this is an effort to share as much about what is known as we can while recognizing there is much that is not known, recognizing the seriousness of such charges and the potential consequences for non-citizens in Canada.
Another by the way, the observations in that previous post are among those I alluded to, without remembering them specifically, in the other discussions in which I said my "
vague" recollection was I had recognized, subsequent to the 2019 discussion you initially referenced, that a summary DUI conviction was an offence constituting serious criminality. You have clearly seen enough posting over a period of years, now, to see how the discussion has evolved, how my understanding has advanced over the years, and continues to advance (the discussion this last several days has definitely helped me better understand various aspects of this).
But the other important, very important thing that the course of these discussions should readily reveal, is how much can vary from case-to-case, from one individual to another. And that this is another reason, a very big reason why the assistance of a lawyer is so imperative. The nuances and tangents are many and potentially quite complicated. Even in a carefully done lengthy post some aspect of an individual's situation is likely to be missed, overlooked, or underestimated, let alone the potential variations for others in similar but almost never the precisely same situation.
The OP's case here involves at least two pending charges for which the potential punishment is ten years imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment; meanwhile, at best the OP indicated
thinking it would be a summary offence (and given the multiple offences, particularly the seriousness of evasion or failure to comply charge, it was likely the OP still had indictable offences pending and that a plea to a summary offence was the product of plea bargaining). The OP had clearly NOT informed IRCC about being charged, even though obviously the charges had been pending for months, even though signing the application included a verification that the applicant would notify IRCC if there was any change in the information provided, and of course information about a criminal charge for an indictable offence is absolutely material (noting an arrest for a hybrid offence is indictable, even if one expects the Crown to elect to proceed with a summary charge, at least until the Crown has made that formal election).
I believe, and very much hope, these discussions can elevate what we understand in a way that will help those affected, but
it needs to be absolutely clear this is NO substitute for obtaining the advice and representation of competent legal counsel. Fortunately I have not needed the assistance of a lawyer more than a few times in my life, but it was very obvious that the better informed I was when I did, the better it was overall, the more I was able to provide the lawyer with the information that mattered, the better I was able to understand the lawyer's advice and follow it.
