The point of IRCC checking ID is to make sure they are dealing with the right person, not to check your health care coverage.
Primarily, true. But not entirely. Far, far from it.
The main tool IRCC still employs when processing applications is a thorough check and cross-check of what the applicant submits. IRCC compares and contrasts everything, looking for discrepancies, inconsistencies, or incongruities. An identification that appears incongruous (let alone overtly inconsistent) with the applicant's other information, including address, will increase the risk of additional screening and non-routine processing. IRCC will, for example, compare an applicant's signature on IDs, and also compare that with the applicant's signature on the application.
In particular, while the leaked copy of the File Requirements Checklist (FRC), the one made accessible in this and other forums, is dated, and it is not clear how the particular triage criteria are employed in practice now, the triage criteria in relationship to documents, for deciding when to issue a Residence Questionnaire to a citizenship applicant, include the following:
C1 - ID (provided in support of application) has been issued within 3 months of application.
C2 - Inconsistency between address on ID and address on application form.
It is not for certain these are still part of the triage criteria / risk indicators in the FRC. But it is highly likely that at the least C2, "Inconsistency between address on ID and address on application form," is still part of the triage criteria, that is the "risk indicators" listed in the FRC. It warrants noting that for a period of time, during an especially strict scrutiny period, either C1 or C2 automatically triggered a Residence Questionnaire. It is not likely either is so strictly applied these days, but again at the least C2 is almost certainly considered a risk indicator still.
Note: The FRC and its contents, including the triage criteria, are strictly confidential, so it is very difficult to get updates on changes to it. But of course what raises questions or suspicions mostly does not change, and while the format is different, in substance the FRC triage criteria is largely consistent with the previously used Operational Manual CP 5 "Risk Indicators,"
things which indicated "further inquiry into declared residence may be required." (Although the CP criteria were more extensive, including things like "
the area code for a person's employment is different from their home area code.")
Leading to . . .
What works is not always what works best or even what works well.
Most of my previous post was aimed at what is likely to work better. Including the observations about not submitting, as an official document, a document that is NOT valid. (Here too, the previously used risk indicators in screening applicants was more extensive than the FRC triage criteria that replaced the CP 5 criteria; CP 5 specifically included "
Provincial healthcare card is expired" as a risk indicator.)
Most Canadians (Canadian PRs) applying for Canadian citizenship hope to make an application that not only results in them taking the oath of citizenship, but they also hope that the process goes smoothly, without the inconvenience of non-routine processing like getting a Residence Questionnaire, or otherwise being subject to extended RQ-related inquiries or investigations.
There are, in particular, some common circumstances that increase the risk of non-routine processing that do not mean citizenship will not be granted, but which can make a big difference in how long it takes and whether the applicant encounters inconvenient non-routine processing along the way. There is no way to guarantee an application will sail through without encountering non-routine processing. But there are some simple ways to reduce the risks. And things that will increase the risk.
For example: Applying with a good margin over the minimum physical presence reduces the risk of RQ. Exactly 1095 days actual physical presence gets an applicant to the oath. BUT waiting to apply with 1130 or so days presence reduces the risk of RQ-related delays.
For another example: Moving outside Canada soon after making a citizenship application does not affect the PR's eligibility for citizenship but increases the risk of non-routine processing and delays in taking the oath.
Meanwhile, otherwise, real life can get complicated, and sometimes real complicated. Sometimes circumstances can be confusing or even misleading. And what appears incongruous, or even inconsistent, can trigger questions, concerns, increased risk of elevated scrutiny, non-routine processing, and delays, sometimes very long delays.
The prudent prospective applicant will, first, wait to apply when they have a sufficient margin over the minimum presence that will assure any total stranger bureaucrat that any oddities or incongruities in the applicant's situation will not affect their meeting the qualifying requirements. And secondly, carefully review all the information and documents, and if there are any incongruities, let alone inconsistencies, sort things out as best they can, truthfully of course, and if there are still some thorns, so to say, to provide supplemental information, and explanation, with the application.
Clue: Not a good idea to submit an invalid document as official identification, at least not if other identification is available.
Sometimes people temporarily move to another province for work or school while remaining a resident of province they came from. For example, just because your address is in Sasketchewan, doesn't mean your Nova Scotia ID is invalid.
It is true that not just sometimes, but many people will often work or attend school or for other reasons have a
temporary residence away from where they maintain their primary residence (been there, done that many times in my life). And for OHIP in particular, a RESIDENT of Ontario may retain their coverage while temporarily outside the province for up to 212 days within any 12 month period (with some exceptions for longer absences for mobile workers and full-time students who maintain their primary residence in Ontario and follow the procedures for providing Service Ontario the specified proof, including proof of their RESIDENCE in Ontario).
BUT that has NOTHING to do with the query here or my observations.
In contrast here the OP,
@Rohnho, is NOT temporarily outside Ontario. The OP "
moved to Quebec" and recognizes that they "
cannot use" that OHIP card:
Can I use health insurance card that I cannot use but not expired as second piece of ID?
Relocating outside Ontario is NOT the same as temporarily being outside the province. As I noted, how recent the move was can make a difference. OHIP will continue coverage "
until the last day of the second full month after [the client]
leaves Ontario." See
https://www.ontario.ca/page/ohip-coverage-across-canada After that the OHIP card is NOT valid.
Beyond that, you appear to be addressing the comments I made that were specifically "
About Submitting [an]
Invalid Document," while noting that in regards to a no longer valid OHIP card, IRCC does NOT play
gotcha games, so odds are good that submitting it "
would not result in a serious issue."
If the identification being presented to IRCC is still valid, that's a different scenario. You say "
just because your address is in Sasketchewan, doesn't mean your Nova Scotia ID is invalid." OK. Assuming that identification is still valid, again that has nothing to do with whether it would be a good idea to submit, as identification, a document that is NOT valid. The OHIP card being discussed above is NOT valid.
But even if the ID is still valid . . . if it appears inconsistent with information in the application, such as the applicant's address, that increases the risks of non-routine processing and delays. Leading to . . .
And even if your health coverage in your original province is cancelled, doesn't mean the document no longer identifies you as you. The point of IRCC checking ID is to make sure they are dealing with the right person, not to check your health care coverage.
The latter part of this I addressed above.
Otherwise, you appear to be confusing presenting an official document (as is required for identification) with what can be presented as evidence. Again, IRCC does NOT generally play
gotcha games, so it is not as if the no longer valid OHIP card is going to cause a serious problem. It will probably work. And it might not even cause any processing issues either, no more than having to explain in response to a question or three in an interview.
There is, for example very little risk that IRCC would treat presenting an invalid (no longer valid) document as an official document as misrepresentation, even though, of course, presenting something as an official document implicitly represents the document to be valid.
But what will work is not necessarily what works well, let alone what works best.
