Test - 54 or 55!?

Thanks Atlanticone, for your reply,

Hi Edgar,

Issue: whether age at time of application or time of test determines whether exemption applies

First, a reminder:
It is not as if I am an expert, at all, but in particular I am no more acquainted with the particular practices at CIC than any other person outside the system . . . beyond critically assessing what reports I read in this and occasionally other forums, trying to glean from them what can be integrated with what we know from a range of more authoritative sources, including of course the relevant Act, the regulations, the operational manuals, operational bulletins, published court decisions, and CIC online information.

There is a lot an outsider does not know and cannot know.

Calling CIC is helpful. In the past, I always called twice (well, I called often enough to get through twice, since it was oft times a hassle to just get through). I made pains to ask the question in precisely the same manner both times. And I compared the answers. If they were at least consistent, I gave the response a high probability of being accurate. If they were inconsistent, I made a third call.

This is something I picked up while participating in another forum for immigration and citizenship several years ago, and it was overwhelmingly the consensus, except for simple, obvious sorts of things (which could usually be answered by looking at CIC FAQs), that call centre responses should not be relied upon unless you got the same response to the exact same question twice (or close enough to critically assess and conclude what was the reliable response), or to the extent one's analysis (based on authoritative sources, not just common sense) tended to confirm the CIC call centre response.

And I always understood the call centre's response to be an informed opinion, not something to be definitively relied upon.

Example (unrelated to issue here): In the sponsored partner PR application process, for example, from what I know the call centre response about an American staying in Canada with a Canadian partner sponsoring the American, is almost always: you must file an in-Canada (to Vegreville CPC) sponsored partner PR application. In contrast, I know it is OK and is actually far better for an American in that situation to nonetheless file the outside-Canada (sent to Mississauga, then transferred to visa office abroad) application. The call centre response is not inaccurate, per se, but it is bad advice for American applicants, and probably likewise for most sponsored partner applicants from visa-exempt countries.

Back to the issue at hand here:
Whether age at time of application or time of test determines whether exemption applies

Beyond a simple reference to the exception in general terms, this particular issue is not something clearly addressed in the operational manuals, so far as I know, and it is not something that is clearly spelled out by regulation.

It arises from the discretion given CIC by the provisions of the Citizenship Act. The particular exception for those aged 55 or older is not a matter of statute nor of a particular regulation, but is a matter of discretion delegated to local CIC officers subject to the Minister's policies or practices (so far as I can discern the lines of authority involved).

My impression:
Generally, criteria or requirements imposed by the Act or by Regulation, are based on the facts as they exist at the time the application is submitted. Based on this, one would generally infer that the language and test requirement would be applicable based on the facts as they exist at the time of the application.

That was my impression. Emphasis on "was." It was based on three things:

-- the general approach of CIC as I just outlined: requirements are assessed based on facts as of the date of the application

-- a previous report in this forum by someone who was surprised by having to take the test even though they were over 55 at the time they appeared for the test (I now think that was because that individual did not reach their 55th birthday until after the application had been referred to the local office, and if they had elected to point it out at the time of the scheduled test, it would have been waived, I think, emphasis on what I "think" not what I know).

-- and a misunderstanding of the post by mero1984 at 4:03 p.m. May 3 (yesterday), wherein I thought the CIC response was clearly that the applicant was considered to be 54 if they applied when they were 54, and that it was mero1984's mother who said

She said even if she signs it today, when they get to her application to change the status from (RECEVIED) To (IN PROCESS) it will take 6-7 months, and she will be beyond 55 at that time :)

(Note: It was not our fault that we misunderstood this since mero1984 was clearly using the pronoun "she" to refer to his mother, the applicant, in the immediately preceding sentence "YES she is considered 54" and then went on to say what "She said" . . . and again "She said that she wont have to take it for sure . . . "

Language can be tricky, especially when pronouns are used. This is why I go to such pains to articulate things in such detail; even then I make many, many mistakes, and probably more often make ambiguous statements; though what mero1984 said was not really ambiguous, since what "she" said was, in context, mistakenly referring to what the applicant who "is considered 54" said, so that misunderstanding was not our fault. This is very, very common; note, mero1984 knew exactly what was meant, so much so as to say "Guys, read my post carefully" but therein lies the rub, since a careful reading of the post reaffirms that it was the mother saying she would not have to take the test. I do not mean to be critical of mero1984 here, and in retrospect I see what was meant more clearly and as I said, this sort of confusion in language is very common; this just illustrates why sometimes it is important, however, to be particularly careful in the language one uses.)


In any event: my impression now:
I do not know about the impact for a person under 18 at the time of applying, but I think mero1984's understanding, based on the response from CIC, is correct: a person who applies prior to turning 55 but whose application does not get processed until after they have turned 55, will be exempted from the test and language requirement.

In other words I do not think she will have to take the test.

Notwithstanding that, personally I would wait to apply until after turning 55 in that situation (I would have to go back a ways into the previous decade to have to wait myself, being well past that ignoble milestone in life already.) I am to the left of liberal in my politics, but very, very conservative when it comes to things like this. (Hence, I have once again put off actually making my own application as yet.)

My reasoning is this: The exemption is a discretionary exception, the discretion for which is delegated to the local officer by policy or practice, not by statute or regulation. It is, simply, a matter of what CIC's practice is, and that practice is generally described as a waiver (an exemption) of the test and language requirements for those who are 55 or older. A waiver can be granted at any time in the process. One would presume that the waiver is based on the facts applicable at the time of the waiver.
There is a caveat however relative to the language part of this:
The Minister has already submitted for public comment a modification to Section 14 in the Citizenship Regulations, relative to the language requirement (see gazette notice April 21).

I see no reason to think that this will affect how the exception/exemption from the knowledge test will be applied to those aged 55 plus. However, the new regulation will require applicants to submit proof of meeting the language requirement with their initial application. Those applicants who are still short of their 55th birthday will, almost undoubtedly, have to include such proof or their applications will be returned as incomplete, even though they will turn 55 before the application is processed by the local office (remember, as it now stands, the waiver is applied at the local office). Perhaps some modifications will be implemented at CPC-Sydney to avoid this for those who, at the least, turn 55 prior to the date the application is "received" (which is typically months after it is submitted), but I doubt it.



In any event:
The applicable statutory provisions and regulations, and operational manual provisions
(Note: the manuals are not exactly current in many respects, and they do not have the force of a regulation or law; they are guidelines, thus not binding.)

See CP Grants and section 7 in particular, particularly 7.3 and 7.4.

7.3 Applicants between 18 and 54 years of age are assessed All adult grant applicants 18 to 54 years of age applying for citizenship are assessed on their ability to communicate in English or French, and their knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. These requirements can be assessed by a written citizenship test or by an interview with a citizenship judge. An applicant who fails the written test must pass an oral interview with a citizenship judge on the knowledge and language requirements. 7.4 Applicants 55 years of age or older Applicants 55 years of age or older do not have to write the test. They may, however, write the test if they wish. If an applicant 55 years of age or older writes the test and fails, the language and knowledge requirements are automatically waived. Do not schedule any applicant 55 years of age or older for an oral interview to test knowledge and language. See CP 7 - Waivers. Note: Applicants 55 years of age and older will still be invited to the local CIC so that identity, residence, and the documents provided to support the citizenship application can be verified.

See CP 7 Waivers for application of waivers generally; see section 1.5, which simply states:

1.5. Waiver of language and knowledge requirements at local office for those over 55 All field officers are delegated to waive the language and knowledge requirements for any person 55 years of age and over.

See Citizenship Act section 5(3)(a) referring to the language and knowledge requirements set out in 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e).

See Citizenship Regulations 14 and 15, which respectively specify the Official Languages and Knowledge of Canada criteria.

CIC online information is similarly superficial; the relevant FAQ, for example, states:

All citizenship applicants should try to meet the language and knowledge requirements. Citizenship classes may be available in your community. The Citizenship Act provides for exceptions in some of the requirements for citizenship. For example, people aged 55 or older do not have to meet the language and knowledge requirements, and do not have to write the citizenship test.

Note, for example, how imprecise this language is. It tends to suggest that the Citizenship Act provides for the exception based on being aged 55 or older. It does not. The Citizenship Act authorizes the Minister to allow for exceptions, and the Minister has delegated the authority to "field officers" (as in local CIC officers I believe) to waive the language and knowledge requirements for persons 55 or older. The exception is not even prescribed by regulation. It is a policy adopted by the Minister at the Minister's discretion under the Act.

The last paragraph underscores my reasoning for the "impression" I now have, as described above.