Top 7 Mistakes of Self-Represented Parties in Small Claims Court

If you are involved in a dispute with someone and can’t resolve your dispute amicably, you may have to go before the courts to enforce your rights. In Ontario, the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to award damages up to $25,000 or order the return of property worth $25,000 or less. A quick and efficient resolution of matters, less formal procedural rules and the possibility of representing one’s self are a few of the many benefits of commencing an action in Small Claims Court rather than before the Superior Court of Justice. If you intend to commence an action in Small Claims Court, below are seven tips to help you navigate through this process.

1) Having no standing

This may seem obvious, but before commencing an action the first question you should ask yourself is: “am I allowed to do this?” It is imperative to find out if you have standing. A party has standing if he or she can demonstrate to the court a sufficient connection to the case and the alleged harm. To put this into context, read the following example.

Alberto and Bernadette are married. Bernadette lent $15,000 to Charlie, a friend of hers, on October 30, 2016. She took those funds out of her personal bank account. Charlie agreed to pay back the loan by the following year. It is now past October 30, 2017. Bernadette has contacted Charlie numerous times to inquire about payment of the loan. Charlie keeps avoiding her calls as he does not have the means to pay her back yet. Alberto and Bernadette decide to sue Charlie in Small Claims Court for the amount owed.

While Bernadette may have a claim against Charlie, the same cannot be said about Alberto. The fact that Alberto and Bernadette are married does not automatically make him a proper plaintiff. Because Bernadette withdrew the funds out of her personal account and because the agreement was specifically between Bernadette and Charlie, Alberto has no connection to this lawsuit. Thus, Alberto has no standing in these proceedings.

Naming the proper is plaintiff is crucial as a defendant may seek and obtain costs against a party who is uselessly named as a plaintiff in an action.

2) Naming the wrong defendant

One of the most common mistakes is to write the wrong name of the parties involved in the lawsuit. If you are suing a corporation, be mindful that it may be operating under a business name rather its actual legal name. You may have to obtain a business name report to get the corporation’s full legal name. If you fail to name the correct business in your pleadings, you may be commencing an action against a corporation that has nothing to do with your dispute. This may result in your action being dismissed right off the bat.

Also, keep in mind that a corporation is a separate person than its directors and officers for the purposes of an action. In certain cases, if directors or officers act outside the scope of their duties, they may be personally liable for your loss. In that case, you should put both their names and the name of the corporation in your claim. However, keep in mind the first mistake discussed in this article: do not add directors and officers as defendants for no reason.

3) Not keeping track of dates and deadlines

If you are thinking of suing, don’t procrastinate to deal with your matter – otherwise, it may be too late for you to do anything. In Ontario, under the Limitations Act, 2002, the general deadline to commence an action against someone is two years from the date of the wrongdoing. Take the above-noted example for instance. If Bernadette had lent money to Charlie on October 30, 2015 and had waited until after October 30, 2017 to sue Charlie, Bernadette’s action would unfortunately be statute-barred.

If you are being sued, you also need to keep track of steps in the legal proceedings. As a defendant, you have twenty calendar days from the day you were served with pleadings to provide a copy of your defence to the plaintiff and file it with the court. If the twentieth day falls on the week-end or any statutory holiday, the last due date to serve and file your defence is the next business day. Failing to file your pleadings on time may result in you being noted in default. This means that you can no longer file a defence and are no longer entitled to receive a copy of any other pleading in the suit. As such, the plaintiff could seek a judgment against you for the full claim without notifying you.

4) Not having any relevant evidence

Evidence is the cornerstone of any lawsuit – no evidence, no case: it’s that simple. As the plaintiff, it is incumbent upon you to provide the court with all the information necessary to support your claim. Written agreements, e-mails, text messages, receipts, photographs and videos are generally a good place to start when gathering information to support your allegations.

When putting together evidence, remember quality trumps quantity. Coming into a courtroom with a stack of papers may intimidate the other party; however, the information you have compiled may not prove anything. When looking at a piece of evidence, ask yourself the following questions: • How is this relevant to my case?

• Is this piece of information reliable?

• Is my source of information objective?

• How is this information supporting my position on this case?

If you are defending an action, while the burden of proof does not fall on your shoulders, you should always prepare to rebut the plaintiff’s arguments. As such, take the time to gather evidence of your own and ask yourself the questions outlined above.

5) Refusing to settle

It is often said that there are three sides to every story: the plaintiff’s version of the events, the defendant’s version of the events and finally, whatever the judge decides! While our legislatures have enacted a plethora of statutes, regulations and by-laws to ensure fairness and equality in the legal system, at times, judgments may seem unfair. Therefore, even in the face of what appears to be a “winner case”, it is never a bad idea to try and resolve the dispute before trial. Parties involved in legal proceedings tend to get caught up in the idea of going to trial. Quite often, lawyers hear: “it’s not about the money, it’s a matter of principle!”

Let’s be honest, if you are in court and your goal is something other than to dispute money or property, you are wasting your time (and money for that matter). Rather than relying on a judge to make a decision on your case, take matters into your own hands and come to a resolution with the other party to get some sense of finality of the dispute even if it means cutting way back on your expectations. This will allow you to move on to better things.

6) Expecting the wrong remedy

Remedies other than money or the return of property are not available in Small Claims Court. The maximum amount of damages the plaintiff will be awarded is $25,000 for a single claim. The plaintiff can also request that any agreed upon interest be applied to the damages claimed or have the interest rate stipulated in the Courts of Justice Act (generally around two percent) apply.

Orders that cannot be awarded to you if you are suing in Small Claims Court include:

• Taking down a negative review from a website;

• Releasing confidential documents;

• Freezing assets;

• Moving a fence; and

• Not playing loud music at night.

7) Not getting independent legal advice

One of the benefits of commencing an action in Small Claims Court is the ability to be self-represented. This can be a good option for those with modest means or for claims where the amount in dispute is minor. Regardless of the amount of the claim and the complexity of the matter, it is always a good idea to obtain legal advice from a lawyer to determine your rights and obligations. You should also consult a lawyer to get a better understanding of the Small Claims Court process and ensure you are doing everything necessary to protect your interests. If there’s anything you should be doing, it’s just that.

Karen Kernisant is a lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean and practices in the areas of civil litigation, family, employment and immigration law. For more information, please visit our website: acmlawfirm.ca.

WHAT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES NEED TO KNOW REGARDING OVERTIME PAY

In Ontario, under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 an employee is entitled to receive one and a half time their hourly wage for every additional hour he or she works over a regular forty-four hour work week. Employers and employees should be mindful of their rights and obligations when it comes to overtime pay.

Which employees are entitled to overtime pay?

Not all employees can claim overtime pay even if they work more than 44 hours in a single week. Generally, overtime pay is reserved for part-time and full-time employees who do not fall under the following positions:

• managers and supervisors;

• superintendents providing services in the building where they live; and

• duly qualified or registered professionals¹ .

Where there is doubt about a person’s status as an employee, it should be noted that courts are not bound by that employee’s title. Rather, courts focus on the employee’s actual daily tasks to determine whether or not a statutory exclusion applies.

Do overtime hours need to be approved?

Many sources of conflicts between employers and employees come from a lack of information and awareness with regards to overtime pay. Policies should be developed by management and made accessible to employees to inform them about procedures for overtime hours to be approved and paid. While these policies are not fully determinative in establishing the right to receive overtime pay, they may help in protecting both the employers and employees’ interests.

Pre-emptive steps to protect both employers and employees’ interests Where there are no policies in place, employees can take the following steps when working overtime hours:

• ask their supervisor to work additional hours;

• keep copies of receipts for services provided;

• document work performed;

• save e-mails sent to third parties;

• take notes of phones calls made or received; and

• docket all hours in software used by employers.

Employers can manage an employee’s overtime pay by:

• having employees sign written agreements detailing the circumstances in which they can request overtime pay, including receiving prior written authorization by the employee’s supervisor;

• requesting that the employees track their hours in a software set up by the employer; and

• limiting the amount of work given to employees after work hours.

If you are an employee and aren’t sure if you are owed overtime pay, it can be helpful to consult a lawyer to know your rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and applicable by-laws. Employers should also seek independent legal advice to avoid any potential liability for failing to pay employees who worked more than forty-four hours in a week.

1 These professions include but are not limited to: architects, engineers, lawyers, accountants, surveyors, veterinarians, chiropractors, dentists, message therapists, physicians, pharmacists and psychologists.

Karen Kernisant is a lawyer at Aubry Campbell MacLean and practices in the areas of employment and family law as well as civil litigation. For more information, please visit our website: www.acmlawfirm.ca.

UNE SOIRÉE DE PLAISIR, UNE VIE DE RESPONSABILITÉS : LES CONSÉQUENCES JURIDIQUES DE LA FRAUDE SEXUELLE SUR L’OBLIGATION DE PAYER UNE PENSION ALIMENTAIRE

Travail, école, épicerie, ménage, cuisine et j’en passe : chacun a de quoi se sentir débordé par ses occupations quotidiennes. Il n’est donc pas étonnant que chacun cherche à se détendre pour oublier ses soucis, même si ce n’est que pour une nuit.

Après une longue semaine de travail, Alex¹ s’est rendu à son bar préféré. Arrivé là-bas, il a fait la rencontre de Sara. Après avoir consommé quelques verres, Alex et Sara ont quitté le bar et ont terminé leur soirée dans un endroit plus intime. Alex et Sara ont continué à se fréquenter pendant quelques semaines jusqu’au jour où Sara a annoncé à Alex qu’elle était enceinte. Pourtant Sara avait insisté qu’elle ne souhaitait pas avoir d’enfant et que, de toute façon, elle prenait la pilule contraceptive tous les jours. Alex, n’étant pas prêt à être père, s’est senti désemparé et trahi.

Quelles sont les obligations alimentaires des parents?

Le droit à la pension alimentaire est un droit qui appartient à l’enfant. Les circonstances dans lesquelles un enfant naît n’a aucune incidence sur le droit de recevoir des aliments. Dans la mesure où les moyens de contraception s’avèrent inefficaces, ils n’éteignent pas l’obligation du parent de pourvoir à son enfant par voie de pension alimentaire. Cette obligation existe même si un des deux partenaires ment intentionnellement à l’autre relativement à son utilisation de moyens de contraception, le désir d’avoir un enfant ou la possibilité de féconder.

Quel est l’impact des obligations alimentaires sur les parents?

L’obligation de payer une pension alimentaire à l’enfant peut être perçu par certains parents comme un fardeau, notamment lorsque l’enfant est le résultat d’une grossesse non désirée. Cela dit, l’impact de la naissance de l’enfant sur le style de vie, la carrière et le revenu du payeur n’ont aucune incidence sur le montant à payer.

Comment calcule-t-on le montant de la pension alimentaire à payer?

Le montant de la pension alimentaire à payer varie en fonction de plusieurs éléments :

• le nombre d’enfants
• l’âge de l’enfant
• le revenu des parents

En plus du montant de base de pension alimentaire, les parents ont l’obligation de contribuer aux dépenses suivantes :

• les frais de garderie
• les dépenses médicales et dentaires
• les frais associés à l’éducation de l’enfant
• le coût des activités parascolaires

L’importance de connaître ses droits et ses devoirs

Le devoir de payer une pension alimentaire juste et équitable En cas de doute, il peut être prudent de consulter un avocat pour connaître ses droits et ses devoirs relativement à l’obligation de payer une pension alimentaire à son enfant. Enfin, pour ceux et celles qui ne sont pas prêt à être parent, choisissez vos loisirs judicieusement.

Karen Kernisant est avocate à Aubry Campbell MacLean et pratique dans le domaine du droit de la famille, du droit de l’emploi et du contentieux civil. Pour de plus amples renseignements, prière de consulter le site Web suivant: www.acmlawfirm.ca.

1 Tous les noms ont été modifiés pour protéger l'identité des parties.

Top 3 Reasons You Should Appeal that Court Case You Lost. And Top 3 Reasons You Shouldn't Appeal.

So much time, money and especially emotional energy go into any kind of court case, that it's natural to have a sense of injustice, being wronged, and wanting to prove the injustice to a higher authority when you lose. Civil business litigation, family cases, criminal trials, small claims, they all have winners and losers.

Most judgments can be appealed up to at least one higher court. Sometimes you've got two or even three levels of appeal available. But should you?

Top 3 Reasons You Should Appeal

1. There was a Very Clear Error of Law in the Trial Judgment

All judges and hearing officers are human. And humans make mistakes. If judges were perfect, there would be no need for an appeal infrastructure as a safety valve for decision makers having an off day. 

Starting out my legal career, I used to imagine that you had to get very, very creative to dream up viable grounds of appeal, because most trial judgments would be solidly reasoned. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Sometimes the facts and law really are against a party, but the decision maker fails to adequately explain how she got to her decision. At other times, the decision fundamentally miscomprehends the law or facts, so that you’re effectively into miscarriage of justice territory. You don’t need to be an unjustly imprisoned lifer to have a miscarriage of justice. 

How often such errors are made is a matter of conjecture, since practically speaking many people won’t bother appealing after a long trial process has taken its toll. But I can tell you from statistics from the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Tax Court of Canada that approximately one in four civil appeals succeeds in some way, and about one in three criminal appeals finds some success. Those really aren’t bad odds if a lot is at stake, and can probably be improved upon with an experienced appellate lawyer since a significant number of appeals are advanced by the self-represented. 

2. An Appeal is Way Cheaper than Paying the Judgment

Its unfortunate that in our society a lot of things come down to money, but that's just the way it is. The reality is that an appeal that will cost you $25,000 in fees against a $3 million judgment is far more justifiable than an appeal that will cost you that same $25,000 in fees as compared to a $40,000 judgment against you.

I have found that litigants often fall into the age old trap of "throwing good money after bad." That's because they've spent a lot of money on trial litigation, perhaps fighting over something that wasn't worth all that money to start with, and then feel compelled to keep spending money on a lost cause on appeal that still isn't really worth it. 

The appeals being justified because they cost a fraction of judgment costs theory also applies to court costs awarded at trial. Even if you perhaps should have lost, but then have $200,000 of the other party's legal fees awarded against you on top of that, you might need to appeal just to fight the costs award. Sometimes by merely filing the appeal, you may gain enough leverage to negotiate a much lower level of costs with the opposing party, or even to have them abandon the costs in exchange for you not further fighting the judgment. 

Once I went before the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn an unjustified family court contempt finding that should have never been made against my client. When I was contemplating taking on the case, I initially wondered whether it was worth it for my client (and me) to go to the highest court in Ontario to fight what was somewhat of a symbolic order (because it's very rare for anyone to go to jail over a contempt finding). But when I learned there had also been a $20,000 costs award against my client out of the contempt motion, I became convinced of the merits of the appeal. We wound up successfully overturning the contempt judgment, and wiping out the costs award, thereby mostly paying for the cost of the appeal. 

3. Your Were Fighting for Something Priceless at Trial

Of course there are some trial issues that aren't quantifiable in monetary terms. Issues that if you lose, are worth a continued fight, regardless of the cost. Your freedom and your children may be the two most obvious categories. 

However, courts hate frivolous appeals. You need an arguable case. An experienced appeals lawyer may be able to come up with at least arguable grounds for you, even if winning that argument is an uphill battle. You absolutely can't base an appeal solely on not liking the trial level court or tribunal result. 

And an appeal isn't a new trial. It's tough to introduce fresh evidence at an appeal - you'll usually need to bring a motion. An appeal isn't just another kick at the can.

So if you're truly fighting over something priceless, you're better off investing resources at trial than on appeal. I'm often approached by litigants who were self-represented at trial, got hammered (perhaps quite unjustly), and now are thinking of hiring me to "fix" the situation. Sometimes I'm able to do that, but you'll never have as good of a shot at winning on an appeal as you did at trial. Often the best result from an appeal is another trial 

Top 3 Reasons You Shouldn't Appeal

1. Finality

There may be a certain emotional peace to a case finally being over, even if you lost. Appealing will just drag things outs. 

2. The Trial Result Really Wasn't That Bad

While you might be outraged about a trial result, on further examination sometimes it really isn't all that bad. It may be a criminal trial where you were convicted, but you weren't sentenced to jail. It could be a family trial where you didn't secure sole custody of your children, but you also didn't lose custody, and will wind up with them 60% of the time, plus you did get spousal support in your favour. Or perhaps it was business litigation where you and your former business partner were suing each other, and the court found that neither of you had proved your claims. 

You'll have to carefully assess how "bad" is a bad that you can't live with coming out of a trial court; that will be a very personal assessment. For instance, for one person who has a high level security clearance, the criminal conviction without jail might lead to a permanent loss of employment and career, whereas for another who is self-employed it might just not really matter much.

You must especially guard against your appeal against a judgment involving partial success triggering a cross-appeal by your opponent, thereby potentially challenging even that partial success. 

3. You Can't Really Afford It

The cost of an appeal is not just in the appeal, but also in paying the fees involved in a court process that might continue after the appeal. If you win the appeal, your opponent could seek to appeal the appeal. If you win the appeal, the case might be sent back for a new trial leading to further expense. Losing the appeal may mean paying the other side's legal costs. 

Often the best strategy for figuring out whether you should or shouldn't appeal may even be to make that determination on a preliminary basis early on in the trial phase of your case. Then you won't be rushed in later making a final decision on an appeal. Yes, you'll have to assess the judgment you received, but at least the appeal pros and cons will already have been considered. 

Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) Confidential: An Immigration Lawyer Tells You What You Need to Know to Not Be Refused Entry to Canada

Shocked you’ve suddenly got to fill out something called an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) in order to come to Canada by air, even though you’ve entered many times before Visa-free? Not sure how to answer the eTA questions? Refused entry to Canada because of an eTA, even though you've been welcomed many times before? You’re not alone.

What is an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA)?

It’s been less than a year since the Government of Canada in November 2016 imposed the eTA requirement on nationals of all Visa-free entry countries (over 50 states), other than Americans. Although the Government seems to have promoted eTAs as not a big deal, in many ways these are mini-Visas, with all the attendant risks, hassles and delays that Visas entail. Supposedly 3.5 million people a year will be applying for eTAs. Previously, only a tiny fraction of those were asked the eTA's probing questions after arriving at a Canadian air port of entry. 

Canada Border Services Agency Officers have the right to ask foreigners seeking entry to Canada all manner of probing questions, but airports are busy places, and most people never were asked questions about things like prior arrests. Now, all foreigners (other than Americans) get asked through the eTA.

While you don’t need to apply for an eTA if arriving in Canada by land or sea, how many people actually do that other than Americans? Canada is not an easy place to get to unless you fly. 

What's the Difference Between a Visa & an eTA?

The main difference between an eTA and a Visa, other than cost and waiting period, is that the eTA is a self-reporting tool that is computer screened. Only if an applicant answers YES to particular questions, or is otherwise flagged in an electronic database, will the eTA application be escalated to human review. By comparison, all Visas supposedly get some human attention (some more than others). 

What's Risks Do eTAs Pose for Travellers?

While the Government of Canada rightly points to the fact that eTAs are only screening for the admission criteria that always applied to any foreigner seeking entry to Canada and which were already tested for in Visa applicants, detailed screening of another 3.5 million people a year is sure to result in thousands of additional refused entries to Canada.

While the government touts the huge numbers of eTAs successfully issued, what is not focussed on is the number of people refused entry because of an eTA. The most common reason for refusal is likely because of disclosure of minor criminal records that the Government of Canada would not otherwise have known about were it not for the eTA questioning. But refusal for health reasons, for being unable to financially support yourself while in Canada, or for being unlikely to leave Canada all also pose refusal risks.

How Should I Answer the eTA Questions?

If you only had to fill out your name, birthdate, address and purpose of visit, the eTA would be easy. But instead, you’re faced with questions like “Do you have a serious health condition for which you are receiving regular medical treatment?”

ou might be wondering, what qualifies as “serious” and what is meant by “regular” or even “treatment"? Good question! There are a lot of important nuances in that one question alone. You don't want to minimize a condition, and then be accused of lying. But you don’t want to unjustifiably exaggerate a condition, and then be refused entry when in fact your condition wasn’t all that serious, and your treatment wasn’t particularly regular. 

In future blog posts, I’ll deconstruct the ways to approach each questions. 

The Government of Canada has produced a 22 page guide on how to fill out the ETA: 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/eta/english.pdf

While the guide is helpful, in some ways it raises more questions than it answers, like in response to the medical question it states: "Select YES if you are receiving regular, ongoing medical treatment for any mental or physical condition.”

But note that the guide's "clarification" isn’t using the same question that was asked in the eTA. The word “serious” has disappeared. The word “ongoing” has appeared.” And mental as well as physical conditions have now been added, leaving one to wonder does taking a low dose anti-depressant need to be disclosed? To me, it certainly doesn’t qualify as “serious health condition” and “regular medical treatment,” but it might qualify as ongoing treatment for a mental condition, especially if some psychotherapy in thrown in. My take would be to follow the wording of the actual question, and not the wording of the guide. But you can hopefully see how confusing this can get, and how easily it might lead to misunderstandings leading to entry to Canada problems.

Three Guiding Principles for Filling out eTAs

For now, I offer you three guiding principles for completing an eTA:

1. Don’t Lie - a "misrepresentation" can bar you from visiting, working or studying in Canada. The misrepresentation may be considered to be far more serious by the Government of Canada than the thing you were trying to hide. Even if you think the government will never find out, you can't be sure about what database access the government might have. I worked for the government for years, and I was never sure. You can be sure that eTA applicants home countries will share more data with Canada than will Visa-required countries, because the eTA countries tend to be close allies of Canada.
2. Don’t Answer Yes Without First Obtaining Legal Advice - these are all loaded, legal questions. If you're asked one of them in person at an airport, you aren't going to be able to have the opportunity to obtain legal advice. But with an eTA, you can talk to a lawyer. A lawyer local to where you live won't be much good to you, because it's unlikely he or she will be qualified to give advice on Canadian law. 
3. Don’t Book Travel Prior to Obtaining an eTA - they’re good for five years, and only cost 7 dollars. So this should be the first step of your trip planning. 

We offer “eTA Quick Legal Consults” (eTA QLC) for those faced with filling out an eTA, and who have concerns about how questions should be answered based upon their personal facts. And on how to resolve eTA refusals. 

The Government of Canada hasn’t changed any of the entry rules to Canada. Reasons for refusal remain the same as they have been. But with eTAs they’ll now have a lot more information on everyone, so you need to treat the eTA document as seriously as you would a Visa application to another country or a passport application in your own country. 

Claiming Birthright Canadian Citizenship: Top 3 Application Errors to Avoid

It might not be all that surprising in the current climate, but my law firm continues to see a surge of applicants seeking to confirm their own or their children's Canadian citizenship. Confirmation of citizenship is quite different from applying to become a citizen. For those seeking confirmation they're already all citizens, but have never previously had a reason to seek out official confirmation from the Government of Canada that they have a right to work, study and live in Canada on an unlimited basis, including carrying a Canadian passport and voting in Canadian elections if they've reached the age of 18.

A lot of the people who retain us to help them with Canadian citizenship confirmation have already tried to apply for confirmation, but the government returned their applications unapproved because of failure to fulfill the requirements. Sometimes those applications have been returned multiple times, leading to many months - perhaps even years - of frustration.

Yes, there's a DIY guide to citizenship confirmation. And yes, you can do it yourself. But if speed, an error free application, and lack of frustration is important to you, you should give serious consideration to using a citizenship lawyer. The cost is pretty reasonable as compared to some other legal services, and is less expensive even than many other immigration law services.

The top three citizenship confirmation errors we've lately seen in our practice relate to birth certificates, translation of documents, and photographs. All seem deceptively simple things to provide to the government. And yet, the government finds fault again and again with what is submitted because the government won't hold your hand, won't coach you through the standards, and applies a standard of perfection. 

1. BIRTH CERTIFICATE ERRORS

a. Not understanding what is a certified copy

A certified copy isn't just a photocopy. And you can't take a copy into someone qualified to make certified copies without also bringing along the original, so that person can compare the original to the copy. That's what certified means: someone trustworthy has seen the original, carefully compared it to the copy, and then stamped and written on the copy, in the customary manner applicable in the territory the certification is being made in, that the copy is "true" to the original.

In Canada, notaries, commissioners of oaths and lawyers can usually create certified copies wherever your live. There may also be other officials like bank managers or school principals who are authorized to do so.

Overseas you should probably stick with a notary who can create a "Notarial Copy" which is generally even better than a certified copy.

Family members can't certify other family members' copies.

b. Attempting to use documents issued in Quebec prior to 1994

In Quebec, you might need to apply for a new birth certificate prior to applying for citizenship confirmation, even if you've already got a birth certificate or baptismal certificate. The Federal Government doesn't like those Quebec documents if they were issued prior to 1994.

Who knows why. I did two law degrees in Quebec, and I don't know why, though I suppose I could find out. You've just got to accept that that's the way it is, and apply for a more recent document. 

2. TRANSLATION ERRORS

In Canada we all know there are only two official languages: English and French. Other than those pesky documents from Quebec mentioned above, the Government of Canada does not have any firm rules on document standards from a country which has produced the documents you might be submitting, but it does require that they be in English or French, otherwise the Canadian government worker processing them won't be able to read them. The government won't translate your documents for you, you've got to pay to do it yourself.

The documents can be translated either in Canada or overseas. Probably in Canada is easiest, since then it's easier to prove you've used a certified translator; make sure you submit that proof. If done by someone who isn't certified in Canada, you'll need to submit a separate affidavit from that person attesting to not only the accuracy of the translation, but also the fluent proficiency of the translator in both the language being translated from and the language being translated to.

The government will NOT take your word on the accuracy of translations without an official translation.

3. PHOTOGRAPH ERRORS

You'd think photos would be the easiest thing of all to provide. We've all now got camera phones that take great pictures. I often try to justify my overpriced new phone to myself by thinking that I actually bought a really great camera, with a phone thrown in for free. But the Government of Canada has yet to enter the digital photo age.

When I went to get my United Kingdom passport (I'm a dual citizenship), they were more than happy to accept the $3 mall photo booth strip of photos I had procured. Not so with Canada. Mess up the photos, and your application will get returned, sometimes with little explanation as to what went wrong.

Photos have a mere 15 requirements to qualify as acceptable (as quoted from the IRCC website):

• Photographs must be printed on quality photographic paper.
• Provide the name of the photographer or the studio, the studio address and the date the photos were taken on the back of the photos
• Print the name of the person on the back of the photos.
• The photographs must be identical and taken within the last six months. They may be either black and white or colour.
• The photographs must be clear, well defined and taken against a plain white or light-coloured background.
• If the photographs are digital, they must not be altered in any way.
• Your face must be square to the camera with a neutral expression, neither frowning nor smiling, and with your mouth closed.
• You may wear non-tinted prescription glasses as long as your eyes are clearly visible. Make sure that the frame does not cover any part of your eyes. Sunglasses are not acceptable.
• A hairpiece or other cosmetic accessory is acceptable if it does not disguise your normal appearance.
• If you must wear a head covering for religious reasons, make sure your full facial features are not obscured.
• The frame size must be 50 mm x 70 mm (2″ x 2 ¾″).
• The photographs must show the full front view of the head, with the face in the middle of the photograph, and include the top of the shoulders.
• The size of the head, from chin to crown, must be between 31 mm (1 1/4″) and 36 mm (1 7/16″).
• Crown means the top of the head or (if obscured by hair or a head covering) where the top of the head or skull would be if it could be seen.
• If the photographs do not meet the specifications, you will have to provide new photographs before your application can be processed.

Don't staple the photo to the application - a paperclip is the most severe form of attachment tolerated.

So to avoid errors, especially as to size, just go to a passport photo place. Drug stores often do this. For about $10 or $15 dollars, you'll get your two photos. The Government of Canada is really picky about its photos.

Succeeding in your citizenship confirmation application involves not just adhering to the letter of the law, or the letter of government policy, but also the letter of the minute application instructions. Misinterpret those instructions, and you'll be receiving a return to sender envelope from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.