A spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one, as derivatives of the investor. Each of them receives the same two-year conditional permanent residence and is included when the conditions are removed, so a child’s age at each stage of the process matters as much as the investment itself.
Derivatives, and the age that ends it
The derivative group is defined narrowly and by facts that change with time. A child who is twenty when the petition is filed may be older at later stages, and the statutory protections that address that situation are technical and depend on dates and on how the case proceeds. Rather than assume either the worst or the best, record every child’s exact date of birth at the outset, map it against the expected stages, and take advice specific to those dates. Marriage also ends derivative eligibility for a child, which is worth saying plainly in a family conversation rather than discovering afterwards.
Hypothetical example: an investor from Roxton Pond files with two children, aged twenty-four and nineteen. The elder is already outside the derivative description on the day the petition goes in, so the household’s real question is what independent basis she has — study in her own status, an employment route of her own, or remaining in Canada — and that question does not improve by being left. The younger qualifies as an unmarried child under twenty-one, but becomes engaged partway through, and marriage ends derivative eligibility on its own terms whatever the age. Both facts were knowable at the start and belong in the plan rather than in a later surprise.