From requiring that foreign nationals have their photos taken as part of the biometrics process to visa applicants needing to provide headshots in their applications, many Canadian immigration programs have a photo requirement. There is no exemption from the photograph for religious reasons. Below is a memo that was prepared for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2013 confirming that there are no exemptions to the photograph requirements in response to a request for an exemption from the Amish community.
» Read more about: Religious Exemption to IRCC Photo Requirements »
Read more ›On June 21, 2018 Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (“Bill C-46”) received Royal Assent.
Bill C-46 is the companion legislation to Bill C-45, The Cannabis Act, which essentially legalized the possession of regulated marijuana for personal use in Canada. Bill C-46 reforms the transportation related offences in Canada’s Criminal Code including drinking and driving, dangerous driving, fleeing the scene of an accident, refusing to give a breathalyzer, fleeing the police and operating a vehicle while prohibited from doing so. Bill C-46 repeals all existing Criminal Code provisions regarding these offences and replaces them with offences that have slightly different wording and new maximum sentences.
The changes in Bill C-46 will come into force 180 days after Royal Assent, which is December 21, 2018. On that day, as a result of the changes, many individuals who could previously travel to or stay in Canada will become inadmissible for serious criminality. People who could previously enter Canada will now instead be denied entry. Permanent residents who commit any of the above actions could be deported. While the Liberal government has indicated that it is aware that these harsh consequences are problematic, it has not proposed any solutions nor offered any timeline for when it may.
The government has, however, indicated that it is open to overhauling how Canada determines whether someone should be inadmissible for criminality. This is a welcome development, and one which hopefully lead to a system that considers public risk and individual offences, rather than blanket exclusions.
Understanding Criminal Inadmissibility
Section 36 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regulates when foreign nationals and permanent residents will be inadmissible to Canada for having been convicted of,
» Read more about: DUIs to Become Serious Criminality »
Read more ›On June 26, 2018 the British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program (the “BC PNP”) clarified and/or modified several aspects of its programs.
Skilled Immigration
The more significant revisions that applicants and practitioners should be aware of are:
-
- Previously, applicants to the BC PNP – Skilled Worker programs, and their spouses, could not have a combined ownership / equity stake of more than 10% in the British Columbia company that was offering them employment. Now, they cannot have held more than 10% ownership in the five pear period preceding the application and throughout the BC PNP application process.
-
- Applicants to the BC PNP Tech Pilot must now qualify under 1 out of 29 eligible occupations. The job offer must be at least one year in duration, and there must be at least 120 calendar days remaining on the job offer at the time of the application.
-
- The BC PNP previously would not nominate individuals if they were not lawfully admitted in their country of current residence. This requirement has been removed.
-
- Post nomination the BC PNP no longer wishes for employers to notify them of any promotions, and instead wants to be notified of demotions.
-
- The BC PNP has changed the wording for bonus points from bonus points to additional points. This may eliminate the ability of individuals to get bonus points in a category that they got zero points in (except for the bonus points).
» Read more about: Summary of June 26 Changes to BC PNP Guide »
Read more ›Last updated on May 29th, 2018
Canada’s visa office in Warsaw processes permanent residence applications from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It processes temporary residence applications from Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.
Temporary Residency Processing
From 2014 – 2016, the Warsaw visa office’s approval rates for temporary residence applications were as follows:
Year
Category
Applications Received
Approval Time
2016
Visitor
1625
63
Student
153
41
Worker
161
62
eTA
9
N/A
2015
Visitor
1693
66
Student
187
37
Worker
983
81
eTA
2014
Visitor
2515
69
Student
340
43
Worker
1225
82
The above statistics do not include the electronic applications from nationals of countries where IRCC-Warsaw has file processing agreements with local offices.
Full Report
A full copy of a report that IRCC’s Warsaw office sent can be found below. It was obtained through an Access to Information Act request.
» Read more about: Canada’s Visa Office in Warsaw »
Read more ›Last updated on May 29th, 2018
Erin Roth is a Lawyer with Edelmann & Co. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.
In this episode Deanna and Erin discuss issues in Canadian medical inadmissibility law. When can someone be inadmissible to Canada because they are sick? How does one confront such an allegation? What changes are upcomming?
1:30 – This episode was recorded in November 2017. Deanna, in an introduction to the episode, provides an overview of the changes to Canadian medical inadmissibility law that the Government of Canada announced would be taking place this summer.
6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.
8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.
13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.
14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.
28:00 –
Read more ›Anyone who presents themselves at a Canadian port of entry is making an application to enter Canada. As such, that person is subject to an examination by an officer. The purpose of such an examination is to determine whether or not the person can enter Canada as a visitor, student or foreign worker, and also to determine whether the individual is inadmissible to Canada.
Canadian immigration legislation requires that a person who is under examination must answer truthfully all questions put to them and also produce all relevant documents and information that an officer requires.
An officer during an examination can also compel a person to appear at a later date for further questioning.
When an Examination Ends
The examination of a person who seeks to enter Canada ends only when:
- a determination is made that the person has a right to enter Canada, or is authorized to enter Canada as a temporary resident or permanent resident, the person is authorized to leave the port of entry at which the examination takes place and the person actually leaves the port of entry;
- if the person is an in-transit passenger, the person departs from Canada;
- the person is authorized to withdraw their application to enter Canada and an officer verifies their departure from Canada; or
- an officer determines that someone is inadmissible to Canada and the person leaves the port of entry.
Refugee Claimants
There are special rules for when examination ends for refugee claimants. In order to understand these rules, it is important to understand the process that a refugee claimant goes through when they file their initial claim.
When an individual makes a refugee claim when they are entering Canada,
» Read more about: Examinations »
Read more ›Last updated on May 17th, 2018
Amanda Lord is a lawyer in the Criminal Law and International Assistance group at the Department of Justice of Canada. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.
In this episode we discuss the Extradition and the State of Law.
2:30 Amanda Lord clarifies the distinction between extradition and immigration deporting proceedings. It is a different process with a different set of principles that apply, so it is important that people understand what extradition entails.
6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.
8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.
13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.
14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.
18:45 An overview of the committal process and Charter protections.
25:45 The question of where an individual can be prosecuted is one that is commonly misunderstood. Amanda explains that certain offences such as child pornography or terrorism are to be prosecuted in Canada even if the offence took place in a foreign country.
36:13 An overview of how to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence.
43:00 Amanda provides examples of cases that resolve by way of a voluntary agreement at the Committal stage.
Read more ›Last updated on May 18th, 2018
Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a British Columbia company could seek a worldwide injunction to to enjoin Google from displaying any part of another company’s websites on any of Google’s search results worldwide.
Daniel Cowper is an Associate at Robert Fleming Lawyers, the law firm which represented Equutsek Solutions Inc. He can be found at @DanielCowper online.
0:56 – An overview of the facts of the case. Equustek, a small technology company in British Columbia launched an action against Datalink, a former distributor who allegedly copied and sold their product. Datalink left British Columbia and continued to carry on its business from an unknown location. Equustek sought a worldwide interlocutory injunction to enjoin Google from displaying any part of Datalink’s websites on any of its search results worldwide.
6:30 – An overview of the test for an interlocutory injunction. There needs to be (1) a serious issue to be tried, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) the balance of convenience must favour the party seeking the injunction.
7:40 – Can someone seek an injunction against a non-party?
9:40 – Can a British Columbia court issue a world wide injunction against a company? In this case, it is appropriate for a British Columbia court to order Google to de-index a website from its search engines globally rather than just in British Columbia or Canada?
14:40 – Would requiring that Google de-index websites breach Google’s freedom of expression?
16:45 – Is there a risk of inconsistent judgements where courts start making global declarations as to what a company should do which render it impossible for the company to do both?
Read more ›Last updated on May 18th, 2018
Doez v. Facebook is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause. The case involved a class action lawsuit brought in British Columbia alleging that Facebook’s Sponsored Stories breached their privacy. Facebook argued that because its Terms of Use stated that users had to litigate any claims in California that the British Columbia courts lacked jurisdiction.
Christopher Rhone is a Partner at Branch MacMaster LLP Barristers & Solicitors. He represented Ms. Doez, the plaintiff, at the Supreme Court.
0:30 – The distinction between civil and commercial litigation.
1:50 – Could Ms. Douez sue Facebook in British Columbia despite its Terms of Service specifying that people would have to litigate disputes in California?
3:30 – Why is Ms. Douez arguing that Facebook breached her privacy rights under British Columbia law? What was Facebook’s Sponsored Stories product?
9:40 – An overview of the Pompey test for determining forum selection clauses, which consists of the following two steps. First, the party must show that a form selection clause is clear and enforceable and that it applies to the cause of action before a court. If this is the case, then second, the other party must show strong cause for why a court should not follow the forum selection clause Reasons to not can include public policy, fairness, convenience, etc.
16:00 – What impact did the size of Facebook have on the Supreme Court’s decision? What is the scope of the ruling? Should people assume that they can sue large, multinational e-technology companies in British Columbia?
Read more ›On November 6, 2017 Ralph Goodale, Canada’s Public Safety Minister, issued a Ministerial Direction to the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) titled Minors in Canada’s Immigration Detention System (the “Ministerial Direction”), as part of its National Immigration Detention Framework (the “NIDF”). The Ministerial Direction notes that:
- Canada’s immigration detention program is based on the principle that detention shall be used only as a last resort, in limited circumstances and only after appropriate alternatives to detention (“ATDs”) are considered and determined to be unsuitable or unavailable;
- The well-being of children, family unity and the use of ATDs shall be core tenets underpinning policy direction, in accordance with the expectations and values of Canadians;
- The best interests of a child shall be a primary consideration to be assessed against other primary and mandatory factors in legislation;
- That Canada has the objective to stop the detention or housing minors and family separation, except in extremely limited circumstances;
- That Canada will ensure that the detention or housing of a minor or the separation of a minor from his/her detained parent(s) or guardian(s) is for the shortest time possible; and
- That Canada will never place minors in segregation or segregate them.
Prior to the NIDF and the Ministerial Direction the number of minors that the CBSA had been holding in detention had been steadily decreasing.
According to internal government statistics, from April 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 the parents of accompanied minors were detained for the following reasons: 78.95% (90) for unlikely to appear, 10.52% (12) for examination, and 10.52% (12) for identity.
As well, the average length of time that a minor was detained also had fallen dramatically.
» Read more about: Minors in Immigration Detention »
Read more ›Social Media
