+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
Here's a recent case, where an applicant left Canada after applying for citizenship. The citizenship Judge actually mentioned the "intent to reside" clause as one of the reasons for refusal, but the Federal court ruled the "intent to reside" aspect is not relevant since it is not yet in force.

http://visalawcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/10/departure-from-canada-after-citizenship.html
 
I really hope the rest of provision of this bill will be procrastinated by Aug, 2015, cuz lot's of immigrant (including me) wishing to apply in July, 2015 before the 4 out of 6 years rule will come in effect.

I strongly aspire for RG petition will turn the tables or at least delayed that law. Who knows someone from CIC or Prime minister office is reading our post :) and get motivated by our voices.
 
MUFC said:
Here is the video that shows an example of potential misunderstanding between the idea of the Minister and the actual wording in the Bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&app=desktop

Wow. It is shocking that not even the minister proposing the law is sure about what the "intent to reside" means. I don't know what it means either (that's for the courts to decide), but I'm pretty sure it isn't "if granted citizenship, you intend to reside in Canada 4 out of the 6 years prior to apply for citizenship".
 
I think It is technically impossible to revoke citizenship for a Canadian or a citizen of any country who moves abroad for whatever reason as I have not ever heard any other country who did that despite the"intention to reside" phrase is already there in countries like UK and New Zealand citizenship laws since many years and many British and NZ citizens live outside for many years, so as the minister said in a meeting with the Senate that the intention to reside is for those who move outside Canada only during the citizenship process before the oath.He also said that the Canadian charter freedom of rights allows freedom of mobilty for all Canadians
 
The intent to reside clause is a political folly with no policy value that creates a legal mess exponentially worse than the one the Conservatives claimed they were fixing with Bill C-24. Its ridiculous......
 
links18 said:
The intent to reside clause is a political folly with no policy value that creates a legal mess exponentially worse than the one the Conservatives claimed they were fixing with Bill C-24. Its ridiculous......

Links18 The intent to reside clause does have policy value. It effective stops any immigrant from making any concrete plans to leave canada until after they have become a Canadian citizen, effectively increasing the commitment they need to show before becoming a Citizen.

Seems reasonable to me as the clause places no restrictions on Citizens.
 
For me it is strange also the idea that these restrictions to travel will be different in accordance to where the application will be processed.

We know that some offices work fast and most of the offices work slow.

So some people will be on hold for 1-2 years after they apply and a small group of applicant who are lucky to be processed in a faster office will be on hold for couple of months.

It looks weird.
 
MUFC

Unfair is probably a better word than weird :( . Being processed at a slow office is also like an extra tax. My wife and Children's passports and PR cards have run out and we can't afford to pay out $1000+ to renew whilst waiting for Citizenship knowing we will be applying for a Canadian passport when granted citizenship. No overseas holidays or family visits for us as we can't afford this "queue tax".
 
CIC may ask you some documentary proof of residence anytime before the oath to make sure the applicant did not move out of Canada during the process of the application,my wife will be applying next Sep so maybe she will go through the new law
 
The Galati challenge . . . crashes hard

For those who had pinned hopes to Galati's challenge, I suppose you can still harbour hope of further appeals. But the opening battle has been decisively a total loss.

Without even getting to Justice Rennie's conclusions, he made one statement that sums up the decision:

"Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

I wonder, though, if what was really meant was that a Conservative Parliament must enjoy . . . , considering the nature and tone of many Justice Rennie decisions.

Thus, not much of a surprise, Justice Rennie concluded:

"In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails."

Galati's case has been tossed.

Tossed with costs it should be noted. Galati's challenge is going to take some change, plus some, out of his pockets (unless the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. carries the full cost . . . although this is, in a manner of speaking, still out of Galati's and Azevedo's pockets).
 
Try the link in the Bill C-24 topic or just go to either the Federal Court site or the Can II site.
 
Ah, thanks. Even though Rocco's name was listed first in the style of cause, the case was indexed differently. And I was looking for a brand new decision, not for one from a week or two ago.

It's a good that the judge went to such great lengths to address the substantive issues raised by the application. Often judges will do that, saying basically: I rule thus on issue A, so issue B is moot; however if I am wrong about issue A, here is what I think re: issue B. That way if it goes to appeal, the higher court can rule on both issues.

The most important procedural hurdle in this case is convincing the court that the GG's decision is justiciable, and that the GG is a proper respondent. I find Justice Rennie's reasons unconvincing. One example is his quoting the Federal Courts Act for the proposition that MPs cannot be respondents:

(2) For greater certainty, the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as defined in subsection (1), does not include the Senate, the House of Commons, any committee or member of either House, the Senate Ethics Officer or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to the exercise of the jurisdiction or powers referred to in sections 41.1 to 41.5 and 86 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

There, he is probably right. But why does he conveniently fail to address this provision when discussing whether the GG is a proper respondent? The Federal Courts Act does exclude a large portion of Legislature, but notably absent in that exhaustive list is the GG himself. The argument that the GG is part of the Legislative branch does appear to have some merit, but the fact is that his role is not stricly - or at all - legislative.

The judge also seems to justify his position with cases and acts of Parliament that took place before 1867. For the ones that are more recent, and subject to "the Constitution", he simply presumes that just because Parliament passed certain statutes during the Dark Ages of Canadian history (which IMHO extend well into the 1940s) they were constitutional just because no one bothered to challenge them in court back then.




I have applied for Canadian citizenship, but there was always a part of me that has been uneasy with the whole thing. Swearing allegiance to a person bothers me immensely, but more than that, I've always felt that, conceptually, being a Canadian is closer to being a subject than a citizen, as the term is understood in the US. This ruling, as well as the attitude that permeates many of this particular judge's decisions, only reinforces those feelings.