Re Papadogiorgakis

Re Papadogiorgakis, [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (F.C.T.D.), Re Pourghasemi, [1993] F.C.J. No. 232, 62 F.T.R. 122 (F.C.T.D.), Re: Koo, [1993] 1 F.C. 286 (F.C.T.D) (Tabs 28-30)

• Prior to modifications to the Citizenship Act which entered into force on June 11, 2015, the residence requirement for citizenship was “residence” for 3 out of 4 years, which could include pre-PR time.
• The use of the term “residence” led to divergent interpretations:

o See Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Naveen, 2013 FC 972 (CanLII), <> at paragraph 24:
 The Applicant made submissions urging me to adopt a strict interpretation of the residency requirement in section 5(1)(c). This argument was in reference to the fact that the Federal Court has interpreted “residence” by invoking three tests commonly referred to as the “Canadianization test”, the “centralized mode of existence test” and the “quality of attachment test”.
o The Canadianization test had focused on physical presence, while the others allowed for more exceptions – see case-law described in Naveen

• Subsequent to the modifications under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which entered into force June 11, 2015, you now need 4 out of 6 years as a PR in Canada, and the legislation now explicitly states “physical presence” rather than “residence”
o This is all explained in Valenzuela c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2016 CF 879 (CanLII), <> (only in French). Valenzuela describes the Papadogorgakis, Pourghasemi, and Koo tests, and how they have now been modified as of June 11, 2015 following the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (2014). Physical presence is now the standard for residence directly incorporated into the legislation.

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.