The Federal Skilled Worker NOC List

29th Jun 2010 Comments Off on The Federal Skilled Worker NOC List

Last Updated on June 29, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

As part of its recent changes to the Federal Skilled Worker Program (“FSWP“), the government has changed which National Occupational Classification (“NOC“) categories are eligible under the program. In short, the FSWP requires that a prospective immigrant either have a job offer or sufficient experience in a designated NOC occupation. These are typically occupations of which there are a shortage of skilled Canadians.

The following table shows the eligible NOC categories before and after the changes. It shows which occupations have been removed, and which have been added.





Computer and information systems managers


Managers in health care


Restaurant and food service managers

Restaurant and food service managers


Accommodation service managers


Construction managers


Financial auditors


Geologists, geochemists, geophysicists


Mining engineers


Geological engineers


Petroleum engineers


Specialists physicians

Specialist physicians


General practitioners and family physicians

General practitioners and family physicians




Occupational therapists





Head nurses


Registered nurses

Registered nurses


Medical radiation technologists

Medical radiation technologists


Licensed practical nurses

Licensed practical nurses


University professors


College and other vocational instructors

Executive chefs
Executive chefs





Contractors and supervisors (pipes)


Contractors and supervisors,

 » Read more about: The Federal Skilled Worker NOC List  »

Read more ›


29th Jun 2010 Comments Off on 加拿大政府宣布将暂时不再接受申请加拿大联邦投资移民计划

Last Updated on June 29, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

计划与家人移民到加拿大的富裕中国人,希望已经听到加拿大政府宣布将暂时不再接受申请加拿大联邦投资移民计划 (IIP)。加拿大政府在今年夏天更改条例后将恢复接受联邦投资移民计划的申请。

加拿大联邦投资移民计划越来越变成成功的商人移民到加拿大最受欢迎的选项。在 2009 年,约 1 万人在该计划下移民到加拿大。

暂停接受申请并不影响这些加拿大当局于 6 月 26 日前收到的申请表,这些将仍会正常处理。


以前,想用联邦投资移民计划移民到加拿大的申请人,必须拥有丰富的商务经验、 有个人净资产CAD 80 万 (CN 5.2 百万),和必须愿意作出 40 万元投资 (CN 2.6百 万),这40万将于5年后全数退回给申请人但是没有利息。在各种融资选项中,申请人支付的实际金额是 CAD 80,000 (CN 524,000)至 CAD 120,000元 (CN 787,000) 之间。这金额实质上将确保申请人的加拿大永久居民身份。

在新的联邦投资移民计划的新条例下,个人净资产要求增加了一倍CAD 1.6 万 (CN 10.4百 万),并且愿意投资CAD 800,000,但是现在尚未有新的融资方案。

这是自 1999 年以来加拿大政府第一次更改联邦投资移民计划的规定,加拿大政府指出条例更改的部分原因是因为亚洲的经济实力。这几年来,由于经济衰退,在个人收入减少的趋势下,亚洲国家尤其是中国却反其道而行的在经济和个人所得方面上升增加。事实上,联邦投资移民计划的新规定,加拿大政府认为亚洲富人用联邦投资移民方式来加拿大的人将会超过北美来的移民,鉴于亚洲人占了联邦投资移民计划的80%,加拿大政府对该地区的持续经济复原能力明显有信心。





 » Read more about: 加拿大政府宣布将暂时不再接受申请加拿大联邦投资移民计划  »

Read more ›

Spousal Sponsorship and Social Assistance

26th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Spousal Sponsorship and Social Assistance

Last updated on April 7th, 2021

Last Updated on April 7, 2021 by Steven Meurrens

Section 133 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) prohibits a Canadian citizen or permanent resident from sponsoring a foreign family member (generally a spouse, common-law partner, parent or grandparent) if the Canadian is in receipt of social assistance for a reason other than a disability.  The Regulations define social assistance as being any benefit, whether money, goods or services, provided to or on behalf of a person by a province under a program of social assistance. It includes assistance for food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and health care not provided by public health care.

Pursuant to the internal Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) e-mails below,  it is important to note that IRCC does not consider subsidized housing to be social assistance.

Section 133(1)(k) of the Regulations explicitly provides that a person can still sponsor a foreign family member to immigrate to Canada if the sponsor receives the social assistance because of a disability.

Previous Receipt of Social Assistance

Depending on the circumstances, the previous receipt of social assistance can render a sponsor ineligible.  Section 133(1)(b) of the Regulations provides that a sponsor must intend to fulfil the obligations in the sponsorship undertaking.  In Alriyati v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 496, Justice Pentney determined that it was reasonable for a visa officer to determine that because someone had been on social assistance for a lengthy period, and only stopped receiving social assistance shortly before submitting a spousal sponsorship application, that the person did not have an intention to fulfil the obligations in the sponsorship undertaking. 

 » Read more about: Spousal Sponsorship and Social Assistance  »

Read more ›

Federal Investor Program Requirements To Double

25th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Federal Investor Program Requirements To Double

Last Updated on June 25, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

In a much anticipated change, the Federal Government has announced a series of changes to the Federal Immigrant Investor Program (“FIIP“) in the Gazette.  Changes to the Quebec Investor Program are expected shortly.

The Doubling

The Government of Canada is proposing that amendments be made to the definition of “investor” and “investment” in section 88 of the Regulations that would increase the investment amount from $400,000 to $800,000 and the personal net worth amount from $800,000 to $1.6M for Investor class applicants.

Administrative Pause

No FIIP  applications will be accepted unless they are post-marked or received by the designated Citizenship and Immigration Canada office before June 26, 2010. This pause will extend until the coming into force of proposed regulatory amendments to the definitions of “Investor” and “Investment” applicable to Business Immigrants in Division 2 of Part 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Priority Processing

FIIP applications received on or after the coming into force of the proposed regulatory amendments shall be processed concurrently with those federal applications received prior to the administrative pause in a ratio consistent with operational requirements.

Why The Doubling?

The Government of Canada is first of all confident that this will not reduce the number of applicants. 80% of FIIP applicants in 2009 came from the Asia-Pacific Region, which continues to boom despite the global economic crisis.

According to the Gazette, the increase will result in a net economic benefit to Canada of $59,229 per investment. In total, this would result in a benefit of $600,000,000 per year to Canada.

While $600,000,000 isn’t bad (you could almost fund security for a G8 summit with that amount),

 » Read more about: Federal Investor Program Requirements To Double  »

Read more ›

Federal Skilled Worker Applications Cap

25th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Federal Skilled Worker Applications Cap

Last Updated on June 25, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

In this first of several changes to Canadian immigration law today, the government has introduced a cap on the number of Federal Skilled Worker applications that will be considered for processing each year.

20,000 applications will be considered each year for people that do not have an offer of employment.

Within the 20,000 cap, a maximum of 1,000 Federal Skilled Worker applications per National Occupational Classification Code will be considered each year.

The NOC eligibility list is also changing. The number of occupations eligible for the federal skilled worker program has been reduced from 38 to 29. Removed occupations include mangers in finance, health care and construction, computer and information systems, university professors, and vocational instructors. Being added to the list are the following occupations: psychologists, social workers, dental hygienists, pharmacists, dentists, architects, biologists, insurance adjusters, claims examiners, primary industry production managers, and professions in business services and management.

In calculating the caps, applications will be considered on the date which they are received.

Requests made on the basis of Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds that accompany a Federal Skilled Worker application not identified for processing will not be processed.

The first year will begin on June 26, 2010, and end on June 30, 2011.

The Official Gazette detailing the new rules can be found here.

 » Read more about: Federal Skilled Worker Applications Cap  »

Read more ›

Do Cruise Ship Employees Need Work Permits?

24th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Do Cruise Ship Employees Need Work Permits?

Last updated on July 21st, 2018

Last Updated on July 21, 2018 by Steven Meurrens

Regulation 186(s) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) regulates when crew members are permitted to work in Canada without first obtaining a work permit.  The Regulations state:

R186(s). A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit as a member of a crew who is employed by a foreign company aboard a means of transportation that

(i) is foreign-owned and not registered in Canada, and

(ii) is engaged primarily in international transportation

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has published helpful guidance as to how this Regulation is to be interpreted (the “Guidelines“).

What is a Member of a Crew

As per the Guidelines, on a cruise ship, crew members include:

  • licensed officers: master, first officer, chief officer or chief mate, first engineer or chief engineer, and subordinate officers and engineers;
  • non-licensed crew: ordinary seamen, able-bodied seamen, bosun (deck crew foreman), engine- room crew (oilers and fitters), and kitchen and mess-room staff (cooks, stewards and messmen); and
  • the hotel manager, cruise director, purser, medical staff, managers and staff of the ship’s bars, restaurants, boutiques and casino, as well as house-cleaning staff and entertainers.

Crew members do not include:

  • supernumeraries: spouses, children and other dependants of crew members;
  • foreign contractors and shipping company technicians: foreign nationals temporarily assigned to a vessel for the sole purpose of making repairs;
  • shipping company superintendents, including persons referred to as supercargo, superintendent engineers, or port captains;
  • employees or executives of a marine transportation company who travel aboard or who visit ships to monitor or supervise operations such as maintenance and repairs,

 » Read more about: Do Cruise Ship Employees Need Work Permits?  »

Read more ›

Functus Officio

22nd Jun 2010 Comments Off on Functus Officio

Last updated on April 29th, 2019

Last Updated on April 29, 2019 by Steven Meurrens

On June 10, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA“) issued its decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Arif, 2010 FCA 157.  The majority and concurring opinions discussed two procedural rules that will interest immigration practitioners  The first issue was when a Federal Court determination regarding a Citizenship Judge’s decision can be appealed. The second was the relationship between section 399(2) of the Federal Court Rules and the principle of functus officio.

When can a Federal Court Order Regarding a Citizenship Judge’s Opinion be Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal?

Section 14 of the Citizenship Act regulates appeals from Citizenship judges. Subsections 5 and 6 provide that:


(5) The Minister or the applicant may appeal to the Court from the decision of the citizenship judge under subsection (2) by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court within sixty days after the day on which

(a) the citizenship judge approved the application under subsection (2); or

(b) notice was mailed or otherwise given under subsection (3) with respect to the application.

Decision final

(6) A decision of the Court pursuant to an appeal made under subsection (5) is, subject to section 20, final and, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lies therefrom.

Subsection six clearly states that the FCA is precluded from hearing appeals from Federal Court decisions pursuant to an appeal of a citizenship judge’s determination. But, does the FCA have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Court reconsidering,

 » Read more about: Functus Officio  »

Read more ›
Section 24 of the Charter and Immigration

Section 24 of the Charter and Immigration

18th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Section 24 of the Charter and Immigration

Last Updated on June 18, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

On June 11, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (“Conway“).  Conway explored the relationship between the Charter, its remedial provisions, and administrative tribunals. 

Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter deal with remedies. Section 24(1) states that anyone whose Charter rights or freedoms have been infringed upon or denied may apply to a “court of competent jurisdiction” to obtain a remedy that is “appropriate and just in the circumstances”. Section 24(2) states that in those proceedings, a court can exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Charter if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In Conway, the appellant argued that several of his Charter rights were breached when he was detained in mental and health facilities, and sought an absolute discharge as the remedy.   The Ontario Review Board (the “Board“) found that it had no Charter jurisdiction to issue a s. 24(1) remedy.  The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge as a Charter remedy because granting such a discharge would, in the appellant’s case, be a significant threat to the public and frustrate the intent of Parliament.

After reviewing the jurisprudence surrounding the application of s. 24 to administrative tribunals, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated a two-part test to determine whether an administrative tribunal has the jurisdiction to issue a particular s. 24 remedy. The two parts are:

  1. Does the administrative tribunal has explicit or implicit jurisdiction to decide questions of law?

 » Read more about: Section 24 of the Charter and Immigration  »

Read more ›
Racial Profiling at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?

Racial Profiling at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?

17th Jun 2010 Comments Off on Racial Profiling at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?

Last Updated on June 17, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

Charlie Gillis has an interesting article Macleans Magazine today titled “Who Doesn’t Get Into Canada”. The article analyses a government report titled “Social and Economic Outcomes of Second Generation Youth” in the context of broader trends in Canadian immigration patterns.  

The government report makes many very blunt observations, including that:

  • Chinese and South Asians are the most likely to have university degrees or higher, and to be employed in high-skilled occupations; and
  • Second-generation youth of Caribbean and Latin American origin don’t fare as well. They tend to obtain lover levels of education than native-born Canadian kids and wind up in less skilled jobs.

Mr. Gillis uses this information to provide the first discussion (that I have seen) on the effects of Bill C-50. Passed in 2008, this Bill provided, amongst other things, the Minister of Immigration with the power to:

  • Limit the number of new applications;
  • Reject applications;
  • Decide the order in which new applications are processed;
  • Delay the processing of applications from specific missions abroad in order to speed those from others; and
  • Give priority to qualified skilled professionals applying under the economic class categories.

Mr. Gillis notes that the impact has appeared to have been increased wait times for family class applicants of South American or Caribbean descent that are disproportionately greater than the increase for those of Asian descent. He notes that:

The average wait time for someone wishing to bring a spouse into the country through Kingston, Jamaica has ballooned to 15 months, fully three times the processing time in 2006. A similar application lodged in New Delhi takes just six months.

 » Read more about: Racial Profiling at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?  »

Read more ›

PRRA Officer Did not Consider Important Country Report

15th Jun 2010 Comments Off on PRRA Officer Did not Consider Important Country Report

Last Updated on June 15, 2010 by Steven Meurrens

On June 7, the Federal Court released its decision in Ariyaratnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 608 (“Ariyaratnam“) The case involved a 28 year old from Sri Lanka whose Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“) and Humanitarian & Compassionate applications were refused.

The appellant argued in Federal Court that the assessing officer (the “Officer“) had a duty to consider a UNHCR report that would have bolstered the applicant’s claim (the “Report“). The Report was released a few weeks before the Officer released her decision, and the Officer did not consider it.

 » Read more about: PRRA Officer Did not Consider Important Country Report  »

Read more ›

Next Page »