This probably is not all that complicated. Better to wait to see the actual decision itself before jumping to too many conclusions, since media reports about cases like this tend to conflate issues, due in large part to extrapolating from fragments of observations by lawyers entangled with anecdotal accounts of context, too often resulting in out-of-context or outright misstatements of the legal issues let alone the dispositive principles.
I would note, for example, that the CBC article states Valilov's citizenship was
"revoked." The Federal Court decision, which was (according to the CBC article) "set aside," stated that Valilov's certificate of citizenship was
"cancelled." There is a difference, a very substantial and important difference. (Net effect is the same: no citizenship, but the reasons, grounds, standard of proof, procedure, are very different.)
To see the Federal Court decision, the one now set aside, go to
http://canlii.ca/t/gkr9s
That said, the core issue is probably fairly simple and straightforward, there being no doubt this individual was born in Canada. Persons born in Canada in 1994 are Canadian citizens, at birth, with limited exceptions. The exception at issue in this case is prescribed in subsection 3(2)(a) in the
Citizenship Act. While section 3 has undergone many amendments over the years, the relevant language in this case has remained the same since the date the Registrar informed Valilov his citizenship certificate was
"cancelled," in 2014, and I think it was the same in 1994 when Valilov
was born in Canada.
For the text of Section 3 in the
Citizenship Act see
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-3
The relevant subsection states that the provision which confers citizenship on a person born in Canada
" . . . does not apply to a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and either of his parents was [(a)] a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government."
Note this is a conjunctive exception.
The CBC article says this is the issue regarding which the Federal Court of Appeals decision disagreed with the Federal Court decision, Justice Bell interpreting 3(2)(a) broadly, to include any employee of a foreign government, and (according to CBC) the Fed Ct of Appeals saying "this shouldn't apply because Vavilov's parents did not have diplomatic privileges or immunities while in Canada."
While this was one of the two certified questions, my understanding is that once the Federal Court of Appeals takes jurisdiction it is not strictly limited to addressing the certified questions. I would like to see the official decision itself, and in particular see the reasoning underlying its interpretation of this Section, before drawing any conclusions about it. There were, for example, procedural fairness issues raised in the lower proceedings.
Some overall observations:
This is an unusual, almost unique situation (recognizing there is a brother with a similar case still pending). It has little general importance outside its particular parameters but is of general importance within the scope of persons born in Canada to a parent employed by a foreign government. And this is probably an issue for which a definitive interpretation is needed, particularly as Canada, like everywhere, is part of the globally mobile world.
However, in particular, this decision has virtually
no significance for grant or naturalized citizenship.
It has no relevance to the procedure or process for revoking citizenship on any grounds.
Additionally, this is a Harper era case. Under Harper's leadership CIC took a far more strict, sometimes draconian approach in how it handled cases in which there was any arguable basis for excluding . . . I forget the term employed by more than a few in Harper's government and many more among Conservatives generally, something to do with persons who are not
old stock Canadians. (The Justice Bell decision was issued when Harper was still PM.)
