People who graduate from designated learning institutions are often eligible to apply for post-graduation work permits (“PGWP“). However, not all schools are eligible.
In addition to other requirements, to be eligible, a student must have graduated from a:
- public post-secondary school, such as a college, trade/technical school or university, or CEGEP in Quebec; or
- private post-secondary school that operates under the same rules as public schools (currently applies only to certain private post-secondary institutions in Quebec); or
- private secondary or post-secondary school (in Quebec) that offers qualifying programs of 900 hours or longer, leading to a diplôme d’études professionnelles (DEP) or an attestation de spécialisation professionnelle (ASP); or
- Canadian private school that can legally award degrees under provincial law (for example, Bachelors, Masters or Doctorate degree) but only if the student was enrolled in a study programs leading to a degree as authorized by the province.
There have been recent media stories about international graduates suing designated learning institutions for misleading them into thinking that they would have been eligible for post-graduate work permits once they graduated.
The requirements to establish a claim in negligent misrepresentation are:
- There must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee;
- The representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading;
- The representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation;
- The representee must have relied in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation; and
- The reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in that damages resulted.
The Nova Scotia case of Clarke v. Nova Scotia College of Early Childhood Education is an example of what the results of negligent misrepresentation claims involving PGWPs may be,Read more ›
On June 12, 2017 Canada’s Department of Employment and Social Development introduced the Global Talent Stream.
Employers are eligible for the Global Talent Stream if they are hiring unique and specialized talent and if that talent has bent referred to the Global Talent Stream by one of ESDC’s designated partners. The list of designated referral partners for the Global Talent Stream includes the following organizations (as of March 21, 2018):
- Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
- BC Tech Association
- Business Development Bank of Canada
- Canadian Economic Development for Quebec Regions
- City of Hamilton’s Economic Development Office
- Communitech Corporation
- Council of Canadian Innovators
- Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
- Global Affairs Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service
- Government of Alberta, Alberta Labour
- Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology
- Government of Manitoba, Manitoba Education and Training
- Government of Prince Edward Island, Island Investment Development Inc.
- Government of Saskatchewan, Ministry of the Economy
- Halifax Regional Business and Community Economic Development Association
- ICT Association of Manitoba (ICTAM)
- Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada – Accelerated Growth Service
- Invest Ottawa
- London Economic Development Corporation
- MaRS Discovery District
- National Research Council – Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP)
- Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration
- Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Growth
- Privy Council Office, Special Projects Team
- Vancouver Economic Commission
- Venn Innovation
Employers are also be eligible if they are seeking to hire foreign workers in highly skilled occupations in the technology professions, including computer engineers, information systems analysts,Read more ›
Employers wishing to apply for Labour Market Impact Assessments are required to first conduct recruitment efforts to hire Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
The Ministry of Economic and Social Development (“ESDC” or “Service Canada“) is very stringent in its recruitment requirements, some of which are not publicly available. I would like to thank Jacobus Kriek, an immigration consultant with Matrixvisa Inc., for providing me copies of the internal Service Canada directives and e-mails that he has obtained.
Please note that what I have reproduced below should not be viewed as legal advice by ESDC or Service Canada. The reproduction of the material below has not occurred with the affiliation of the Government of Canada, nor with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. As well, given the nature of relying on internal documents, some of the information may be out of date.Read more ›
Section 9.4 of Annex B of the Canada – British Columbia Immigration Agreement 2015 provides that “if Canada or B.C. determines that there is a real and substantial risk to a foreign worker as a result of an employer not complying with federal or provincial laws, Canada and B.C. will jointly undertake actions to mitigate such risk, including, where appropriate, issuing a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) through the priority Labour Market Impact Assessment process, or issuing a new work permit without the need for an LMIA provided that the Foreign Worker meets all other requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR”).
On May 4, 2018 the Government of Canada announced how it will apply the LMIA exemption to foreign workers who are at risk as a result of potential employer non-compliance in British Columbia. The policy will be in force until April 7, 2020. The measures are available to all foreign nationals in B.C. who hold an employer-specific work permit for an employer located in B.C. or who are authorized to work without a work permit.
Under the policy, visa officers may consider issuing a work permit if they have reason to suspect potential employer non-compliance with provincial laws or reason to suspect potential employer non-compliance with federal laws.
According to the IRCC website, examples of employer non-compliance with a provincial law may include but are not limited to the following:
- employer non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act by charging job placement and recruitment fees or by repeatedly not paying wages owed to the foreign worker; and
- employer violation of the Occupation Health and Safety Regulations whereby the employer is failing to provide a safe work environment, which creates undue hazards to the health and safety of the foreign worker or fails to correct unsafe working conditions.
I have previously written in this blog about how Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC’) has adapted an exceptionally strict approach to returning applications for incompleteness. I have also written in Policy Options about how frustrating this approach can be, because one of its main purposes appears to be to allow politicians to boast about reduced processing times, while ignoring the fact that the experience of individuals who are actually applying is actually often longer than previously. I wrote:
The current rigid triage system distorts a fair comparison of processing times. Suppose an individual applies to sponsor a spouse to immigrate to Canada and forgets to include in one of the forms the city where a non-accompanying brother was born. Previously, processing might have been delayed by two to three months while IRCC contacted the family, informed them of the mistake and requested they provide the information. Now, IRCC would instead return the application one to two months after it is submitted, and the family would have to resubmit. If some supporting documents have expired, they may have to reobtain them, and the process can easily take several months. Under the previous system, this delay would have added two to three months to the processing time. Under the Liberals’ triage system, technically there is no delay because processing doesn’t start until the application is resubmitted. So while the government can boast of reduced processing times, applicants are frequently worse off, and the time that it takes IRCC to approve their immigration applications is lengthened.
I should note that while the above paragraph criticizes the Liberal Government of Canada approach to returning incomplete applications, the previous Conservative Government of Canada essentially adopted (and indeed created) the same approach.
Two recent Federal Court decisions show just how strict IRCC is currently being.Read more ›
The following is an article that I wrote for Policy Options.
On February 14, 2018, Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), announced that the processing time for spousal sponsorship applications had been reduced from 26 months to 12 months in 80 percent of cases. The Minister attributed the reduction to a “Family Class Tiger Team” that had redesigned application packages and introduced workflow efficiencies.
What the Minister didn’t mention was that IRCC achieved its reduction in processing at least in part because it has established an unbelievably strict triage system for marriage-based immigration applications. As reported in several media outlets at the end of January 2018, this intake-management system has in many instances left Canadian families in limbo, caused people who were legally in Canada to lose their status and impeded the ability of the foreign-national spouses of Canadian citizens to work.
On the same day that the Minister made his announcement, IRCC issued an Operational Bulletin stating that effective March 15, 2018, IRCC would return as incomplete applications that do not include a detailed form listing personal and address history, and police certificates from countries where applicants have lived. These forms and police certificates were previously required but not subject to the triage system.
This triage system makes it difficult to accurately compare application processing times and, more importantly, it creates unnecessary and unwarranted hardship for Canadians seeking to reunite with their families.
The drive for faster processing times
It is true that under the former Conservative government, processing times for spousal and common-law sponsorship applications were generally slower than they currently are. These slower processing times were in large part due to lower quotas that the Conservatives had for family reunification.Read more ›
R. v. Boutilier is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court had to determine whether Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime is constitutional.
Eric Purtzki is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver who was counsel to Mr. Boutilier before the Supreme Court.
We discuss how Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime works, the consequences of being designated a dangerous offender, his arguments at the Supreme Court, and the decision.
1:15 – The facts of the case – Mr. Boutilier robs a pharmacy with an imitation firearm. A car chase ensues. He pleads guilty to six criminal charges to this. The Crown afterwards seeks a designation that Mr. Boutilier is a dangerous offender. Mr. Boutilier challenged the law on the dangerous offender designation.
2:00 – What are the consequences of being designated a Dangerous Offender?
2:30 – What is the purpose of the dangerous offender designation?
9:30 – What are the requirements to be designated a dangerous offender?
13:30 – What are the statistics of release for dangerous offenders, and how does someone get released from indefinite detention if they are a dangerous offender?
17:00 – When someone enters into a plea bargain, do they know whether the Crown will seek dangerous offender status? Is the dangerous offender designation ever used as a bargaining tool?
20:30 – Does dangerous offender designation require a Crown application or can a judge impose it?
24:11 – Eric summarizes the arguments that he made at the Supreme Court of Canada regarding that the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code are overbroad and constitute cruel and unusual punishment.Read more ›
Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.
- Business and Entrepreneur Immigrantion
- Citizenship Applications and Revocations
- Family Class (Spousal Sponsorships, Parents & Grandparents)
- Humanitarian and Compassionate
- Immigration Consultants
- Immigration Trends
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Work Permits