Before Bill C-3, Canadian citizenship law relied on a strict rule: citizenship by descent generally stopped after the first generation born abroad. This meant that even individuals with strong ties to Canada could not pass citizenship to their children if those children were also born outside the country.
In Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, the Ontario Superior Court found that this rule was constitutionally flawed. The court held that it created unequal citizenship status and failed to account for the realities of modern Canadian families.
The key issue was not whether Canada could require a connection to the country. The problem was that the law did not measure connection at all. It simply excluded people based on generational status.
The emergence of the 1,095-day standard
The court in Bjorkquist made an important observation: less restrictive alternatives were available. In particular, it referred to a substantial connection model, including a physical presence requirement, as a more proportionate way to achieve Parliament’s goals.
Bill C-3 adopts that approach. It replaces the automatic exclusion with a requirement that a Canadian parent demonstrate 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada before passing citizenship to a child born abroad.
This number is not arbitrary. It reflects an attempt to balance two competing interests:
Ensuring that citizenship reflects a real connection to Canada
Avoiding the unfairness of a blanket exclusion
Why this rule is constitutionally significant
The 1,095-day rule is important because it directly addresses the constitutional defects identified in Bjorkquist.
Under the old law:
Individuals were excluded regardless of their connection to Canada
The rule operated as a permanent barrier
It created what the court called a “lesser class of citizenship”
Under the new law:
Eligibility depends on measurable connection
Individuals are not automatically excluded
The system is more closely tied to lived reality
In this sense, the rule is not just a policy change. It is a Charter-informed design. While the new model is more flexible, it also introduces complexity.
Applicants must now prove physical presence. This can raise several issues:
Incomplete records: Older cases may lack documentation
Frequent travel: Individuals with international careers may have fragmented timelines
Informal residence: Time spent in Canada without formal documentation may be harder to prove.
This shifts the burden from a legal barrier to an evidentiary challenge.
Applicants should approach the 1,095-day requirement carefully. Strong applications typically include:
A detailed residency timeline
Supporting documents (tax filings, employment records, school records)
Explanation of any gaps or inconsistencies
In more complex cases, legal strategy becomes important, especially where evidence is incomplete.
At A&M Canadian Immigration Law Corporation, we assist clients with determining whether the 1,095-day threshold is met, reconstructing residence history where records are incomplete, identifying acceptable alternative evidence, preparing clear, well-supported applications and addressing refusals or complex eligibility questions
These cases often involve more than simple calculations. Careful preparation can significantly improve the chances of success. The 1,095-day rule represents a shift from exclusion to evaluation. It reflects the court’s message in Bjorkquist: citizenship law must be fair, flexible, and grounded in reality. At the same time, the new system requires applicants to actively demonstrate their connection to Canada. Understanding both the legal standard and the practical requirements is essential.
Sources
1. Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152 (CanLII)
2. Parliament of Canada, Bill C-3 (45-1), LEGISinfo
3. Government of Canada, “Change to citizenship rules in 2025”
