In Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against a JR dismissal determining whether: "section 10 of the Citizenship Act, by which citizenship that was obtained by “false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances” may be revoked, violate paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights".
Here the court considered an issue of 'statelessness':
[142] .... The Delegate explained that citizenship revocation does not automatically result in removal and that any removal from Canada would involve a separate process dependent on post-revocation decisions made by other decision makers pursuant to the IRPA. The Delegate did not err in so stating: Xu at paras. 63-64. A loss of citizenship does not mean that a person must leave Canada even if the person also loses permanent resident status: Xu at para. 67.
[143] Statelessness: The Delegate acknowledged Ms. Tan’s representation that she lost Chinese citizenship upon acquiring Canadian citizenship but found that restoration of her Chinese citizenship was available under the laws of China. Ms. Tan has not demonstrated any error in the Delegate’s finding. The Delegate emphasized that Ms. Tan had submitted no evidence in support of her claim that losing Canadian citizenship would necessarily render her stateless. The Delegate stated that Canada’s obligation to not deprive an individual of nationality and render them stateless does not extend to an individual whose nationality or citizenship was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. The Delegate did not use the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to lessen their obligation to consider statelessness, as Ms. Tan argues.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
