The GOOD NEWS; for these particular items (Item 9.c and Item 10.b), a "no" response contrary to fact will not likely be deemed misrepresentation (with caveats of course):
Potential misrepresentation: The most serious consequence for getting something like this wrong is having the response determined to be a material misrepresentation.
On its face, if an applicant who was living abroad at any time during the preceding five years (the "eligibility period") answers "no" to a question (
Item 9.c) asking whether he or she lived outside Canada during the eligibility period, that answer is contrary to the facts. Deliberately responding contrary to fact is, of course, misrepresentation.
Likewise, on its face, if an applicant who spent a total of 183 days in a country other than Canada, during the preceding four years, answers "no" to a question (
Item 10.b.) asking whether he or she was in another country for a total of 183 days during the preceding four years, that answer is contrary to the facts. Again, deliberately responding contrary to fact is, of course, misrepresentation.
The odds of either response being deemed a material misrepresentation (which would be grounds for denying the application and barring the applicant from being eligible for the next five years, and technically could be grounds for criminal prosecution) are
LOW,
so long as (of course) the applicant has otherwise completed the form and accurately declared relevant information as to address history and the presence calculation, and in respect to
Item 10.b. the "no" response does not appear to be an overt attempt to avoid submitting a police certificate from a country in which the applicant has some criminal history. (The applicant has otherwise submitted all the relevant and accurate information, notwithstanding the erroneous "no" response, so there is no reason to suspect let alone believe there is an effort to deceive or conceal.)
That said, there is a huge difference between these two items, that is between
Item 10.b and
Item 9.c, having to do with what a "yes" or "no" entails, in how the response affects the application:
-- A false "no" response to
Item 9.c does not benefit the applicant in any way. It does not deter IRCC from making further inquiries into the applicant's eligibility for citizenship.
-- In contrast, a false "no" response to
Item 10.b purports to exclude the applicant from having to submit a police certificate and could deter IRCC from further inquiries into questions about the applicant's history in another country.
In other words, a false "no" response to
Item 10.b may be perceived to be an attempt to dodge IRCC's requirements and assessment of the applicant, and if IRCC interpreted the response to be such an effort, obviously that could trigger a determination of misrepresentation.
It warrants noting that there are various degrees of action taken regarding misstatements of fact and perceived misrepresentation.
Not all misstatements of fact are misrepresentation. Innocent and incidental misstatements of fact can range from misunderstanding the question or instructions (checking "no" to
Item 9.c despite having lived abroad for example), to minor, incidental mistakes, which will generally not cause any problems.
In some instances a misstatement of fact may be significant enough it has an impact on IRCC's perceptions about the applicant's credibility, in effect compromising the applicant's reliability as a reporter of facts, in which case it is not a misrepresentation unless it was intended to deceive or conceal, but it can negatively impact IRCC decision-making, such as in making it more difficult for the applicant to prove this or that qualification. Big but innocently made mistakes in accounting for time abroad fall into this category.
If IRCC perceives reason to believe the applicant deliberately made a misstatement of fact (or deliberately omitted material information), it is a much more serious situation. Depending on the facts and circumstances, including the extent to which IRCC perceives there was an overt effort to deceive or conceal material information from IRCC, the consequences can range from IRCC treating the applicant's input more of less skeptically (from somewhat skeptically, to perhaps so skeptically that none of the applicant's input is believed except to the extent it is directly corroborated by objective evidence or otherwise established through other sources) to a formal determination of misrepresentation, the latter constituting a stand alone ground for denying the application and resulting in a five year prohibition.
A
contrary to fact response of "no," to
Item 10.b or
Item 9.c, should easily fall into the category of misunderstanding the question or instructions, or an otherwise innocent mistake, which will generally not cause any problems. Again, this is
so long as the applicant has otherwise completed the form and accurately declared relevant information as to address history and the presence calculation, and in respect to
Item 10.b. the "no" response does not appear to be an overt attempt to avoid submitting a police certificate from a country in which the applicant has some criminal history.
Other potential consequences:
Potential return of application: The applicant who accurately checks "yes" to either of these items and does NOT submit the respectively requested certificate or form, or alternatively provide an explanation as to why the respectively requested certificate or form is not submitted,
RISKS the return of the application as incomplete. Other than the inherent delay due to this and some incidental costs related to shipping the application again, this is NO BIG DEAL.
The best way to avoid this RISK, is to check "yes" and include an explanation. This will almost certainly work for
Item 9.c but may or may not work for
Item 10.b. For
Item 10.b, there is also a RISK that even if the explanation allows the application to pass completeness screening, IRCC may later specifically request a police certificate.
BOTTOM-LINE:
If I understand what is proposed by
@Patrik BC and a few others, that it is OK for some applicants to check "no" in response to
Item 10.b despite having in fact been in another country 183 or more days during the preceding four years (that for this or that reason, some of that time does not apply),
that I am very certain is at least a BAD idea. How bad will vary, as discussed above.
