How Bill C-3 connects to the judgment in Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, how? Let us explain this for you.
The case that changed the conversation
The starting point is simple. In Bjorkquist, the Ontario Superior Court looked at the old “second-generation cut-off” in the Citizenship Act. That rule stopped many Canadians who were born abroad from automatically passing citizenship to their own children if those children were also born abroad. The court said that rule created a form of second-class citizenship. It held that the provision violated sections 15 and 6 of the Charter, was not saved by section 1, and suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months.
That matters because the judgment did not treat the issue as a small technical problem. It treated it as a basic constitutional defect. The court said the law treated Canadians born abroad differently from Canadians born in Canada and naturalized citizens. It also said the rule burdened the real lives of families who lived, worked, studied, and had children across borders.
What the court was really saying
The most important part of Bjorkquist was not only that the old rule was unconstitutional. It was that the court explained why it was unconstitutional.
The judge found that the second-generation cut-off was too blunt. It did not ask whether a family had real and lasting ties to Canada. It simply drew a hard line based on where one generation had been born. The court said that approach was overbroad. It also said the government had failed to show why such a harsh rule was necessary. Even where Canada wanted clarity and consistency in citizenship law, the court found that a permanent blanket ban went too far.
That point is what links the judgment to the new law. The court was not saying Parliament could never regulate citizenship by descent. It was saying Parliament could not do it in that rigid way.
The bridge inside the judgment itself
The connection to Bill C-3 becomes even clearer in the remedy and section 1 parts of the judgment.
In Bjorkquist, the court discussed a less harmful alternative: a substantial connection test. It noted that amendments being considered in the Bill S-245 process would replace the blanket cut-off with a rule allowing citizenship by descent where a first-generation parent born abroad had 1,095 days of cumulative physical presence in Canada before the child’s birth. The court treated that as an example of a more tailored model. It also noted that Parliament already had a head start because amendments were already under study when the judgment was released.
So the judgment did two things at once. It struck down the old rule, and it pointed toward the shape of a replacement.
What Bill C-3 did
Bill C-3 was introduced on June 5, 2025. It received royal assent on November 20, 2025, and came into force on December 15, 2025. Parliament’s summary says the Act now does two important things. First, it ensures citizenship by descent for people born outside Canada before the law came into force to a parent who was a citizen. Second, it allows citizenship by descent beyond the first generation for people born outside Canada on or after the law’s coming into force if their parent had a substantial connection to Canada before the birth.
The federal government’s own backgrounder says the old law had limited passing citizenship to the first generation for people born or adopted abroad, and that on December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court found parts of that regime unconstitutional. It also says the government did not appeal because the law had “unacceptable outcomes” for Canadians whose children were born outside the country.
That is about as direct a connection as you can get. The government itself tied Bill C-3 to the constitutional problem identified in Bjorkquist.
Where the new law mirrors the judgment
The clearest overlap is the new 1,095-day substantial connection test.
The court in Bjorkquist referred to that model when discussing less rights-impairing alternatives. Later, the government introduced Bill C-3 using the same basic framework. Government materials say the new law allows citizenship beyond the first generation where the Canadian parent born or adopted abroad can show at least 1,095 cumulative days, or three years, of physical presence in Canada before the child’s birth or adoption.
That does not mean the court wrote the legislation. Parliament still made the policy choice. But the new law clearly follows the path the court identified. It moves away from an automatic exclusion and toward a rule based on actual connection to Canada.
Why that connection matters
This is why Bill C-3 should not be seen as a random policy update. It is better understood as Parliament’s answer to a constitutional judgment.
Before Bjorkquist, the law assumed that citizenship by descent had to stop after one generation abroad. After Bjorkquist, that assumption was no longer legally stable. The court had already said the old rule created unequal citizenship and imposed burdens that were too severe. It had also made clear that a narrower option existed. Bill C-3 fits that logic. It keeps the idea that citizenship by descent should be tied to Canada, but it drops the old idea that some citizens can be cut off completely just because their family history includes more than one birth abroad.
Bill C-3 connects to Bjorkquist in a very direct way. The judgment found the old second-generation cut-off unconstitutional. It rejected the idea that a blanket ban was justified. It pointed to a substantial-connection model as a less harmful alternative. Then Parliament enacted Bill C-3 using that same general approach: citizenship beyond the first generation, but tied to a demonstrated link to Canada.
So the new law did not appear out of nowhere. It grew out of the constitutional problem Bjorkquist exposed and the legal path the court helped open.
Sources
1. Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152 (CanLII)
2. Parliament of Canada, Bill C-3 Royal Assent text and summary
3. Parliament of Canada, LEGISinfo, Bill C-3 (45-1)
4. Government of Canada, “Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into effect”
