Overall, I absolutely concur in deferring to Licensed Lawyers for questions about criminal law and criminal procedure.
I can offer some observations nonetheless:
It is not clear to me that when a charge for a hybrid offence is still pending a defendant can be certain they are "
not prohibited under citizenship act."
The offence
itself should NOT constitute a prohibition, but that is based on assuming that there is a formal election by the Crown, an election that is sufficiently
in the record to trigger the rule that once the Crown has elected to proceed summarily the offence is deemed to NOT be an indictable offence. This rule is oft cited, and is affirmed by Canada's Supreme Court in R. v. Dudley, 2009 SCC 58 [2009]
https://canlii.ca/t/272k3 . But since this is a hybrid offence, the rest of the Supreme Court's ruling in Dudly should not be overlooked, which allows the Crown to
re-elect (in effect change its mind) and proceed by way of indictment (it is a little more complicated than that, well, actually quite a lot more complicated, but bottom-line, well, it ain't over until its over). Also see edit-added note re inadmissibility.
The other reason for uncertainty is the possibility of a period of probation (discussed at length and in-depth in the other topic). In the other topic the anecdotal reporting suggested that, upon conviction, the courts may typically impose the driving prohibition BUT NOT probation otherwise. Makes a big difference. Being on probation, that is "
under a probation order," is a prohibition under the Citizenship Act. Section 22(1)(a)(i) Citizenship Act
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-7.html#docCont
Moreover, the odds suggest a significant risk IRCC will take a longer, closer look, and that this will delay processing for some time . . . perhaps until after there is a final disposition of the criminal charge. And even if the conviction is for a summary offence, if probation is imposed, again that is one of the prohibitions and IRCC could proceed to deny the application on that basis (it might delay making a formal decision long enough probation ends, ending the prohibition, which means it is possible to get citizenship EVEN IF probation is imposed . . . but if so, NOT until after probation has ended).
If the worst case in the criminal proceedings is being formally prosecuted as a summary offence (obviously a discharge without conviction would be a better outcome), and there is no period of probation or imprisonment imposed, then yes, this offence itself will not constitute a prohibition under the Citizenship Act.
Bringing this to . . .
"I know that I am not prohibited under citizenship act. My major concern is related to inadmissibility under IRPA if I got conviced of DUI charges after my court final hearing."
There is no special rule for impaired driving offences that I am aware of. Criminal inadmissibility for a Permanent Resident does NOT depend on whether the offence is an indictable offence or a summary offence. The term of imprisonment determines whether the offence constitutes "serious criminality" and makes a PR inadmissible.
This is Subsection 36(1) IRPA
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont which defines when a PR is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality. Note that the grounds in this subsection also apply to Foreign Nationals (FNs) . . . remember, PRs are Canadians, NOT FNs.
Subsection 36(2), in contrast, applies to FNs but NOT PRs, and it is subsection 36(2)(a) which prescribes a FN is inadmissible based on convictions for two [summary] offences. This has NO application to PRs.
There are basically two thresholds which trigger serious criminality for a PR.
-- conviction for (or technically just the commission of the acts outside Canada) an offence that is punishable by at least 10 years imprisonment under Canadian law, or
-- conviction for an offence that results in the imposition of a term of imprisonment for more than six months in Canada
Thus, for example, if a PR (for whatever reason) is actually sentenced to a term of imprisonment for more than six months, then EVEN IF the offence was prosecuted as a summary offence, that constitutes serious criminality and makes the PR inadmissible.
Note, for example, that the maximum sentence for a simple driving while impaired offence (Section 320.1(1) Criminal Code
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-70.html#docCont is the main offence for run-of-the-mill "impaired" operation offences) prosecuted as a summary offence (under Section 320.19(1)(b) in the Criminal Code) is two years less a day. So, technically it is possible a PR might be sentenced to more than six months imprisonment for a impaired driving offence prosecuted as a summary offence. THIS is NOT LIKELY absent some serious aggravating circumstances.
Some confusion regarding the six month threshold for serious criminality might come from a period of time in which the government was interpreting Section 36(1)(a) IRPA
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont to apply in situations where a sentence of imprisonment is imposed and then suspended on conditions. I believe this is common. The court in effect holds the longer sentence over the defendant's head pending the defendant's cooperation in meeting conditions of sentencing, including probation. I do not have a citation handy but the court definitively rejected that interpretation, and ruled that 36(1)((a) means sentencing for an ACTUAL period of imprisonment more than six months. But for a time, the government (I think this was a Harper government thing) was pursuing inadmissibility proceedings against PRs for relatively minor offences where even no jail time was actually imposed but the court imposed a suspended sentence of more than six months. Which probably applied to many if not most of those convicted of hybrid offences prosecuted as summary offences, such as impaired driving offences.
Edit to add note regarding IRCC and CBSA approach to hybrid offences for purposes of inadmissibility:
Based on subsection 36(3)(a) IRPA (same link as above), for purposes of inadmissibility IRCC and CBSA consider hybrid offences to be indictable offences "
even if it has been prosecuted summarily." Not relevant here since, again, the criminal inadmissibility of a PR is based on the term of imprisonment, either the maximum for the offence (ten years is the threshold for serious criminality) or the actual period of imprisonment (more than six months). This does not conflict with the rule affirmed by
Dudley, but is a specific instance in which the rule in
Dudley does not apply because a particular statutory provision specifies otherwise. There is no comparable statutory provision in the Citizenship Act, so as several cases affirm, the rule affirmed by
Dudley does apply for purposes of what is an indictable offence and a prohibition under the Citizenship Act.
