The Bjorkquist decision and the second-generation cutoff: how we got here

If you have received a Bill C-3 citizenship-by-descent certificate, or you are watching the June 2026 review of those certificates unfold, the news can feel like it came out of nowhere. It did not. The legal story behind it runs back several years, through an Ontario courtroom, a set of temporary measures, and a new law that changed how Canada decides who inherits citizenship from a Canadian parent. Understanding that chain helps you see where the current certificate review fits, and where it does not.

This piece is legal history, not a how-to for your file. This is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC). If you have already received a letter asking you to surrender a certificate, the steps that actually matter for your case are covered in our guide on what to do if IRCC emails you to surrender your certificate, and the full picture lives on the certificate review hub.

The second-generation cutoff, and why it existed

For years, Canadian citizenship by descent ran into a hard wall called the second-generation cutoff. The rule, set out in subsection 3(3) of the Citizenship Act, worked like this: a Canadian citizen who was themselves born abroad could not automatically pass citizenship to a child also born abroad. Citizenship by descent essentially stopped after the first generation born outside Canada.

The cutoff arrived in 2009. Parliament had been reacting to earlier controversies about so-called "citizens of convenience," and the first-generation limit was meant to draw a clean line. In practice it produced outcomes that struck many families as arbitrary. A Canadian parent who happened to be working, studying, or living abroad when their child was born could find that child shut out of citizenship, even where the family's ties to Canada were deep and real. People in this situation became known, loosely, as "lost Canadians." We walk through who that term covers in Lost Canadians, explained.

The distinction between citizenship and the paper that proves it matters here, and it keeps mattering through the rest of this story. A certificate of citizenship is evidence of status, not the status itself. If you want the precise difference, see citizenship certificate vs. proof vs. citizenship. Hold onto that distinction. It explains a lot about why the 2026 review is framed the way it is.

Bjorkquist: the 2023 Ontario ruling

The cutoff was challenged in court, and on December 19, 2023, it lost. In Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, through Justice Akbarali, declared the second-generation cutoff in section 3(3) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. The court found it breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the mobility rights in section 6 and the equality guarantee in section 15.

The reasoning, in plain terms, was that the cutoff treated Canadians born abroad as a lesser class of citizen. A Canadian born in Canada could pass citizenship to a child born abroad; a Canadian born abroad, in many cases, could not. The court saw that gap as discriminatory, and it concluded the rule could not stand.

Courts that strike down a law do not always switch it off the same day. Here, the court suspended its declaration of invalidity. That is a common remedy: it gives Parliament a window to write a replacement rather than leaving a hole in the statute. So the cutoff was declared invalid, but its operation was paused while the government decided what to do. You can read the full decision through the official court record at CanLII.

A key point for anyone trying to make sense of June 2026: the Bjorkquist ruling was about the law itself, not about any individual's documents. The court did not say anything about how IRCC should later examine the proof a person submits. That came later, and through a different mechanism entirely.

Interim measures while Parliament caught up

With the cutoff struck down but its replacement not yet written, families were left in an awkward gap. The court had said the old rule was unconstitutional, yet there was no new rule fully in force. To bridge that gap, IRCC announced interim measures on March 13, 2025, and expanded them on March 20, 2025.

These measures let officers grant citizenship on a discretionary basis under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act, a long-standing provision for special and unusual cases. They were a stopgap, not a permanent fix, and they came with an expiry date built in. The interim measures ended on December 15, 2025, the same day the new legislation took effect. The operational guidance IRCC published for that period is still available on canada.ca.

The interim period matters for context because it shows the system moving in stages: a court ruling, then a temporary administrative patch, then a statute. Each stage had its own legal basis. That layering is part of why the 2026 review feels confusing to people caught in it; the rules they applied under were not static.

Bill C-3 and the substantial-connection test

The permanent fix is Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act. It received Royal Assent on November 20, 2025, and came into force on December 15, 2025. We cover its mechanics in depth in Bill C-3, citizenship by descent, explained and on the policy page for the bill.

Bill C-3 retires the first-generation limit and puts a "substantial connection" test in its place. The core requirement: a Canadian-born parent who wants to pass citizenship to a child born abroad must have accumulated at least 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada before that child's birth or adoption. That is three years' worth of days, though they do not need to be consecutive. If you are trying to work out whether a parent's time in Canada clears that bar, our physical-presence calculator can help you tally the days, and for families specifically there is the child citizenship by descent parent guide.

Between December 15, 2025 and March 31, 2026, IRCC issued 4,075 citizenship-by-descent certificates under the new C-3 framework. Roughly half, about 1,955, went to people born in the United States. Keep that 4,075 figure in mind, because it gets misread. It is the number of certificates issued, not the number of people later asked to review them.

Where the June 2026 review fits, and where it does not

This brings us to the present. Over a weekend in mid-June 2026 (sources place it around June 13 to 15; the exact date varies by report), the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, Peggy Sun, emailed some C-3 certificate holders to say their files were under review and to ask them to surrender their certificates while that review proceeds. As reported, the Registrar wrote that she had information a recipient "may not be entitled to hold a Canadian certificate of citizenship," and that the certificate would be returned if the review confirmed entitlement.

Here is the part that the legal history makes clear, and that careful framing demands. This review is not a challenge to Bill C-3. The statute is in force and has not been repealed or struck down. It is also not a fraud case and not a formal revocation. Nobody in this group has been accused of lying. The concern IRCC has raised, as reported, is documentary: that some applications relied on compiled genealogy records rather than certified records from original source authorities such as provincial vital statistics or civil registries, and did not explain why originals were unavailable.

The precise terms matter because they carry different legal weight, and people sometimes blur them:

• Surrendered means you returned the physical certificate when asked. It is a request about a document.
• Under review is IRCC's own framing: the file is being re-examined and no final decision has been stated.
• Suspended is informal media shorthand. It is not a precise legal status, and no official source confirms what your status is during the review.
• Revoked refers to formal revocation under section 10 of the Citizenship Act, which requires fraud or false representation and goes through Federal Court with full procedural protections. As reported, this review uses the Registrar's surrender power (described in secondary commentary as section 26(1) of the Citizenship Regulations, the "issued in error" route) rather than section 10. That instrument has not been confirmed against an actual letter, so treat it as reported, not settled.

For a fuller treatment of the line between this review and true revocation, see can Canada revoke citizenship by descent? The practical effects on passports, travel, and work during a review are genuinely uncertain; no source confirms them either way, and our coverage of those impacts says so plainly. Do not assume the worst, and do not assume nothing has changed. Confirm against your actual letter and official IRCC channels.

The political and legal response has moved quickly. On June 16, 2026, NDP critic Jenny Kwan sent an open letter demanding answers and a halt to adverse action until reviews finish. The same day, Minister Lena Metlege Diab defended the process in the House, telling members that "genealogy websites are not enough." Several lawyers have called the approach unprecedented, and some affected people are weighing a court challenge. As of this writing, none has been confirmed filed.

What this history means for you

The throughline is that the dispute in 2026 is about the administration of certificates, not about the validity of the law. Bjorkquist ended the second-generation cutoff. Interim measures bridged the gap. Bill C-3 wrote the new rule. The current review sits on top of all that, asking a narrower question about the quality and source of the documents behind specific certificates.

If you are affected, the constructive response is documentary, not defensive. Gathering certified vital records from source authorities, and a written explanation where originals genuinely do not exist, is the substance of any answer to IRCC. Our guide on how to respond and get legal help walks through that, and if statelessness is a worry, the protections that may apply are worth reading. The broader citizenship section collects the rest.

One closing note, because it is the one that protects you: none of this is legal advice. If a review touches your file, talk to a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or an RCIC about your specific documents and timeline, and verify everything against your actual letter and official IRCC channels. The history explains how we got here. Only a professional looking at your file can tell you what to do next.