Max and Lando Case Study

You are retained to represent a common-law couple, Max and Lando, with respect to Lando's application for Canadian citizenship.

LandO is a citizen of the United Kingdom and came to Canada as a student to pursue automotive engineering at the University of Waterloo in 2015.

Max is a Canadian who acquired citizenship by descent through his mother when he was born in the Netherlands. His father is Dutch and the family moved to Canada where Max was raised. Max is now a race car driver who frequently travels around the world for work but is based in Canada. In the last 5 years, he has spent half his time abroad.

The couple met while on vacation approximately 6 (six) years ago and moved in together approximately 3 (three) years ago in 2021.

Lando graduated from Waterloo in April of 2019 and received a three-year Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP). After graduation, he moved back home with his parents in Silverstone, England while searching for a job. After some time searching, in January 2020, he was fortunate to be hired as an automative engineer for General Motors' (GM) new electric vehicle factory in Ontario.

In 2021, Lando applied for permanent residency (PR) through the Express Entry Canadian Experience Class using a combination of points from his Canadian education and one year of Canadian work experience, as well as his young age and English language ability. His application was granted and he was landed as a PR in May 2021.

Lando moved into Max's condo in 2021 and Max continued to pay the mortgage as he earns considerably more income. They also opened a joint bank account during this time for shared expenses.

Since the pandemic, Lando works mostly from home in Toronto by remote as the factory is in Ingersoll and he does not have to be on site for most of his duties. He only occasionally attends the facility for specific reasons. Prior to moving in with Max, Lando resided with a family friend in Canada, who had a basement unit that was not being used. He never had a lease agreement.

Since Lando is able to work mostly remotely, he began accompanying Max on many of his frequent trips for races abroad after they moved into together. Lando read an online forum that said this time abroad counts towards his residency requirement as he is accompanying his common-law partner who is a Canadian citizen. Before this, Lando had not left Canada for any vacations since starting his position with GM.

In the three years after they moved in together, Lando approximates that he spent 7 months overseas travelling with Max.

In April 2024, Lando applied for his Canadian citizenship. Last week, he received a letter from IRCC stating that they have concerns regarding whether he meets his residency requirements. They have also included a residency questionnaire. Lando suspects there may be some discrepancies between the travel dates he provided and the travel history collected by CBSA. IRCC has provided 30 days for a response and Lando has come to see you for advice as a registered RCIC.

During the consultation, Lando also mentions that he and Max are in the process of becoming parents through adoption in the U.K. Accordingly, they are wondering if their future child will be entitled to Canadian citizenship.

Key questions

1) Do you believe Lando may have met the residency requirement for citizenship when he applied in April 2024? You do not need precise dates or an exact answer but must detail your reasoning as to why he may or may not qualify and how you would advise him to proceed.

2) Identify the potential evidentiary hurdles Lando will face in demonstrating his required physical residency in Canada as part of the residency questionnaire when they apply for citizenship, and describe the types of evidence that you would recommend he attempt to obtain as part of his response.

3) What advice would you provide Lando regarding the potential citizenship status of a child he and Max adopt abroad? a. What criteria must be met for the adoption to be recognized for citizenship purposes? b. May the child be limited by the first generation born abroad rule? Explain the possible impact the rule may have under both the current and incoming legislation, including whether the child is adopted prior to or after the coming into force of Bill C-71. c. How will the timing of Lando's application for citizenship affect the citizenship pathways for their adopted child?

Instructions

For Part 1, you will analyze your client's case using the FILAC framework and make some written notes on your analysis. Then, in Part 2, you will use your notes as a basis for advising your client orally, and you will video record yourself doing this. This is the main element for your grade.

As you begin to analyze your clients' case, use the FILAC framework to support your reasoning. Remember that the first three steps - F, I, and L - are iterative. It's hard to know what facts are legally relevant until you know something about the law in this area. Similarly, becoming familiar with the law will help you clearly articulate the legal issues that your clients face. (For a review of the legal reasoning process, see FILAC: A Framework for Legal Reasoning).

Facts: As you read through the facts, keep the law nearby to help you identify what's legally relevant. Based on your understanding of the readings in this module, and on the new law you have learned pursuant ot theCitizenship Act, try to identify the facts that you think may be legally relevant. As noted above, it is difficult to know what facts are legally relevant until you know something about what the law requires.

Issues: There are at least two legal issues implied in the questions presented to you at the end of the fact scenario. Extract the legal issues you see and articulate them using the "whether" structure described in your Blatt & Kurtz text (circa page 80). You may need to analyze each issue separately: keep in mind your clients' goals. As above, to articulate the legal issues, you will need a good grasp of the relevant law - including legislation and case law - as well as government policy. Be prepared to reread the key legislative provisions and key cases as articulate the issues.Note that some aspects of the questions presented go to different concerns - like whether you client is able to prove the truth of relevant facts using credible evidence.

Law: For each issue, identify the relevant legislation, case law, and/or policy. Review the Module 1 required readings for relevant law and policy.

Application and Conclusion: After thinking through your clients' situation, the facts, issues, and law, now apply the law to your client's facts so you can predict their current likelihood of success in achieving their goals - and what they could do to improve their chances of reaching their goals. This will form the basis for your advice to your clients in Part 2 of this assignment.

Submit Part 1 in a Word or PDF document. Cite any authorities you rely on in your reasoning (cases, legislation, policy) in accordance with the McGill Guide.Show your work on each issue. That is, label your preliminary analysis: identify the issue (the "whether" statement); identify the law and facts that are relevant for that issue; apply the law to the facts; and state a conclusion on that issue.Part 1 will form the foundation of your mark for "Foundational knowledge and legal research". In Part 2, you will need to translate your foundational knowledge into effective client communication. See the rubric below for more details. The target word count for Part 1 is 500 words (two pages), plus or minus fifty words (450-550 words). Word counts beyond this range will affect your grade. Point form is acceptable.

In Part 1, you used legal reasoning to determine answers to the Key Questions found at the end of the fact scenario. Now that you have analyzed your clients' case, you need to present your opinion and advice to them. For Part 2, videorecord yourself in the role of consultant, summarizing your advice to your clients. The video should be 3-4 minutes in length. As you prepare to advise your clients, think about your analysis in terms of the CREAC framework. Reiterate the questions, and then provide your answer (the Conclusion). Talk about the law that applies to the particular facts relevant to that issue, and advise your client as to how they might overcome any obstacles you see. You do not need to write out a CREAC argument, nor should you rewrite your case analysis notes. Simply use your analysis and think about how best to present that information orally to a listener who is extremely concerned about reaching their citizenship goals.

Part 2 will be assessed on all three competencies for this assignment: "Foundational knowledge and legal research," "Critical thinking," and "Case management and communication." See the rubric below for more details.