I did have a look at the links, and hence my knowledge of what forms to use. I just wanted to be sure and re-affirm what I had found.
To be clear, your query asks about specifics in the applications, including whether or not applications can be made online. These sorts of questions MUST be answered by looking at the applications and instructions for the applications themselves.
These are always subject to change. The IRCC information is really the ONLY reliable source for answering these questions.
If your queries were about interpretations or clarifications or about some confusion as to particular questions or instructions, that would be different. But to know whether an application is made by paper or online, see the IRCC instructions. To know if a particular question is asked in an application, go through the application. And so on.
My signature is NOT intended to be cavalier. I mean it when I say "
if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions." And if you are ever inclined to NOT follow the instructions based on advice or information you got from a forum like this: make dammm SURE you know what you are doing and why and what the risks are. (Yeah, I do not always precisely follow the instructions, almost always but not always, but those decisions demand extra diligent homework and consideration.)
Ultimately the applicant is the individual who needs to know what is asked, and is the person to answer it. Even if you employ a lawyer or consultant, YOU need to know what is asked and you need to provide the answer. DO NOT TRUST a consultant who will do these for you. This is a large part of why most applicants do NOT need a lawyer or consultant for these applications: there really is nothing for a lawyer or consultant to do . . . UNLESS the applicant is someone who has some difficulty with bureaucratic procedures and forms generally, and thus needs someone to walk them through the questions and instructions, item by item. No one here can do that. For that, you would need to obtain the assistance of a lawyer or consultant (to my view, better to steer away from consultants unless there is very good and solid reason to trust one, and even then be certain the consultant is AUTHORIZED).
Hi dpenabill,
Here is an interesting question on the same subject:
One is dual national, arrives in Canada using one passport, applies for PR declaring same passport only, and not disclosing the other (i.e for not having the passport or ID to prove it, and wanting to facilitate process).
Now is going to apply for citizenship:
1. If now decides to declare both non Canadian citizenships, would that fall under "misrepresentation", and PR could be revoked?
2. If decides to NOT declare, and is granted Canadian citizenship, will this fall under "misrepresentation", and possible revoked citizenship at later years?
3. If AFTER granted Canadian citizenship, one would declare the other non Canadian citizenship, will it still fall under "misrepresentation", and possibly would lead into revoking.
What is your thoughts on the matter? and what would be safest route?
Any other members with knowledge on the matter, pls chime in.
Thanks.
Reminder: I am NOT an expert and I am especially NOT qualified to give personal advice.
And, apart from that, while hypotheticals may be useful for illustrating how this or that rule or policy might apply to a particular fact pattern, more often hypotheticals tend to be unnaturally focused on particular facts or elements without due regard for all the variables which will influence how things go in any actual case. Thus, while hypotheticals can be particularly useful for illustrating how a particular, concrete fact can (not necessarily for-sure will, but how it "can" or how it might) influence the process, they are not terribly useful in the abstract.
BUT in any event, let's be clear: any statement of fact which is NOT accurate, not a truthful statement of the actual facts, could POSSIBLY be seen, by IRCC, as a misrepresentation. And if IRCC identifies and alleges a particular misrepresentation, the POTENTIAL consequences are severe, ranging from potential inadmissibility (including loss of PR status) to criminal prosecution, potentially a stand-alone ground for denying a citizenship application (and resulting in a five year prohibition), and if not discovered until after citizenship, grounds for revoking citizenship.
While any statement of fact which is NOT accurate, not a truthful statement of the actual facts, could POSSIBLY be seen, by IRCC, as a misrepresentation, NOT every misstatement of fact will be considered a misrepresentation. In fact, most misstatements of fact are considered mistakes, innocent or incidental errors.
In particular, for a misstatement of fact to be misrepresentation, there are of course additional considerations. Was the misstatement deliberate? Was it intended to deceive or conceal? Was it intended to confuse or deflect or evade? And crucially, did the misstatement regard a
MATERIAL fact?
And, whether a particular fact is a material fact can depend on context. NOT ALL MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT ARE CREATED EQUAL.
Thus, the very same misstatement of fact in one case can be seen and approached and handled very differently when that very same misstatement has been made in another case. Example: One applicant's failure to disclose a three-week trip abroad may be readily recognized to be an innocent oversight, in one situation, but appear to be a deliberate attempt to conceal time abroad in another. The latter would be misrepresentation. The first, just a mistake requiring a deduction of days from the presence calculation. Same basic misstatement of fact. Very big difference in what impact it has.
Thus, there is NO direct answer for the hypothetical proffered here. There are way, way too many possible variables to even begin offering any reliable analysis let alone an assessment in particular.
I was tempted to address another example and wander into the weeds with reference to the most recent decisions in the Oberlander case. See
http://canlii.ca/t/hv9mp and
http://canlii.ca/t/hvzt1
That example: upon first immigrating to Canada the individual discloses his military history, and truthfully describes what he personally did while in the military, but does not provide precise details about every unit he served in while in the military.
For the vast, vast majority of individuals a failure to precisely detail each military unit the person served in is NOT anywhere near the kind of omission which would be deemed a misrepresentation (by omission) of a material fact. Personal confession: In my PR application I did not precisely disclose each and every unit I was assigned to when in the military. I am NOT worried about being accused of misrepresentation by omission.
BUT precisely this kind of omission is the specific basis for the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship, more than SIX DECADES after he came to Canada. When Oberlander was a very young man he was (1) conscripted by the occupying German Army (that is, he was not serving as a matter of choice), and (2) employed as an translator/interpreter given his background in German in addition to the local language.
NOT exactly what is typically considered war crimes conduct. But for part of the war, when he was still a TEENAGER (just 17 and 18 years old), he was assigned to do these duties with a particularly well-known and brutal unit notorious for torturing and killing civilians (described as a "mobile killing squad" in some sources and court decisions). There are NO allegations Oberlander committed or participated in any such activities.
Procedurally this case is nothing like the typical revocation case these days. The revocation proceedings against Oberlander have taken nearly a QUARTER CENTURY (they were first commenced in 1994, as I recall, and appear to have finally come to a conclusion just this month, barring any further judicial relief).
Substantively, however, with one twist (having to do with World War II cases in particular) which has been the subject of the most recent wrangling and judicial decisions, the key, underlying element hits dead center in the typical revocation case these days: a misrepresentation by omission regarding what is deemed to be a material fact.
In his case, omitting the fact that he served (as an auxiliary interpreter, with NO rank, and not actually a member of the unit) with the unit described to be a mobile killing squad known as Ek10a.
To be clear, however, and to emphasize the point, the substantive ground for revoking his citizenship was the failure to disclose precisely which unit he was assigned to during the war, even though he was a mere teenage "auxiliary interpreter," and drafted by the occupying Germans.
I do not know anywhere near enough of the details to have an opinion about Mr. Oberlander personally.
BUT I can imagine how difficult (how crazy) it would be to trying dodging the draft as a 17 year old running from an occupying force of the German army, which apparently he was expected to do.
These days the more common factual basis for revoking citizenship appears to be either the failure to disclose a criminal charge (a prohibition) or misrepresenting physical presence in Canada, albeit I believe there were scores of cases under the Harper government which were predicated on consultant-facilitated fraud schemes for meeting the PR Residency Obligation despite actually being outside Canada more than reported. It warrants emphasis, however, that the specific ground for revocation, now, in all these cases, is fraud or misrepresentation.
