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.
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 ›
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.
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
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 ›
Last updated on June 20th, 2021
Several large scale immigration frauds in recent years have resulted in thousands of permanent residents facing removal of Canada for misrepresentation. Many are filing appeals based on humanitarian & compassionate considerations.
In assessing such appeals, both the Canada Border Services Agency, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Immigration Appeal Division face the task of weighing an individual’s previous misconduct against the compassionate mitigating factors which may exist.
To quote Justice Russel in Yu v. Canada, 2017 FC 10-88 the decision in Dowers v Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, 2017 FC 593 at paragraphs 2 to 6, stresses the point that concern about the past must be separated from concern about the future:
A situation such as the Applicant’s, where a person comes to Canada and stays without adhering to the immigration laws, but, nevertheless, succeeds to be a positive, productive, and valuable member of society must be given careful attention. Section 25 has no purpose if that person is easily condemned for her or his immigration history. The history must be viewed as a fact which is to be taken into consideration, but within a serious holistic and empathetic exploration of the totality of the evidence, to discover whether good reason exists to be compassionate and humanitarian. The discovery requires full engagement:
Applying compassion requires an empathetic approach. This approach is achieved by a decision-maker stepping into the shoes of an applicant and asking the question: how would I feel if I were her or him? In coming to the answer, the decision-maker’s heart, as well as analytical mind, must be engaged (Tigist Damte v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),Read more ›
On November 1, 2017 the British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program (the “BC PNP”) clarified and/or modified several aspects of its programs.
The more significant revisions that applicants and practitioners should be aware of are:
- The International Graduates and International Post-Graduate programs have long excluded graduates from distance education programs from being eligible. As well, a person’s education has not been eligible for Skills Immigration Registration System (“SIRS”) ranking points if it was obtained through distance education. The BC PNP has now defined “distance education.” It means “a program of study in which the majority of credits earned by the student toward the completion of a program were earned by completing online courses.
- The BC PNP has removed the requirement that candidates meet the employment requirements for offered positions, as per the National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) website. However, the BC PNP may still refer to the NOC website to determine the minimum qualifications for an occupation.
- Previously, an applicant could not have an ownership/equity take of more than 10% in the B.C. company that is offering employment. The BC PNP has changed this requirement to state that an applicant and his/her pouse cannot have a combined ownership/equity stake of more than 10% in the B.C. company that is offering employment.
- The BC PNP has re-affirmed that it does not consider bonuses, commissions, profit-sharing distributions, tips/gratuities, overtime wages, housing allowances, room and board, or other similar payments to be part of a person’s wage.
- The BC PNP has completely changed the job requirements in the Express Entry International Graduate and International Graduate programs.
The following is an article that I wrote for The Canadian Immigrant.
It is generally understood that small businesses are the bedrock of the Canadian economy. The entrepreneurs who start them are often considered the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for foreign worker entrepreneurs in Canada to use their Canadian business experience to qualify for economic immigration programs. Prospective immigrants who are self-employed or run small businesses in Canada, or want to, need to understand the immigration consequences of doing so in order to properly structure and time the establishment of their companies.
Self-employment and immigrating
Many of Canada’s economic immigration programs restrict or penalize Canadian self-employment. For example, one of the basic eligibility requirements of Canada’s largest economic immigration program, the Canadian experience class, is that applicants have at least 12 months of skilled work experience within three years of applying to immigrate. It specifically excludes self-employment from being eligible experience.
In the Express Entry application intake management system, prospective immigrants to Canada are ranked against each other. People can get points for a variety of factors, and points for Canadian work experience can be especially valuable. However, any experience that was gained through self-employment is ineligible for points.
Incorporating isn’t the answer
Many individuals assume that if their business is incorporated then they will not count as being self-employed. However, it is not this simple.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) adopts a holistic approach to determining whether someone is self-employed. Relevant factors include: the degree of the worker’s control or autonomy in terms of how and when work is performed; whether the worker owns and provides their own tools, the degree of financial risk assumed by the worker; whether the worker is free to make business decisions that affect his or her ability to realize a profit or incur a loss;Read more ›
Last updated on June 14th, 2021
In June 2017 I wrote an article for Policy Options about how I believed that while the existence of the immigration consultant profession in Canada promoted access to justice reforms were needed to strengthen the weeding out of some unethical behaviour. One of the things that I recommended was that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) temporarily have the power to refuse to process applications submitted by people represented by consultants whom IRCC has previously determined to be unscrupulous, and that IRCC should also be allowed to levy fines against unscrupulous representatives in certain circumstances.
I recently received the results of an Access to Information Act request where the requester asked to see copies of all complaints sent by IRCC to provincial law societies and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (the “ICCRC”), the body which regulates immigration consulants. The results, which were over 13o pages, were astonishing for several reasons.
First, I have previously suspected despite general perception to the contrary that the number of complaints filed against immigration consultants was probably the same as against lawyers. However, I seem to have been wrong. Based on the Access to Information Act results, it appears that IRCC has never filed a complaint about a lawyer to a provincial law society. While it is possible that complaints against lawyers simply did not make their way into the Access to Information Act results, or that all of the complaints against lawyers were redacted, this seems unlikely, and at a minimum after reviewing the Access to Information Act results it is clear that the number of complaints that IRCC has made to the ICCRC about unscrupulous consultants dwarfs the number of complaints made about lawyers (which again appears to be none).Read more ›
Last updated on September 1st, 2018
(This post is a follow-up to my previous post on this topic here.)
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 ›
Last updated on May 7th, 2019
A difficult situation that some prospective immigrants who are already inside Canada face is that they have a criminal record that they have not previously disclosed to Canadian immigration officials.
What is often especially unfortunate in such situations is that the criminal conviction can be really old, but the instances where someone failed to disclose their conviction to Canadian immigration officials more recent.
Having successfully represented several individuals in such situations obtain permanent residency, there are several legal principles that I think anyone in such a situation needs to understand.
1. An individual who has a foreign criminal record can apply to Canadian immigration officials for a determination that they are rehabilitated if it has been more than five years since the sentence was completed.
Rehabilitation assessments are forward-looking. The test is whether a person is likely to commit criminal conduct. Officers must consider both positive an neutral factors relevant to the application.
2. An individual not disclosing a criminal record to Canadian immigration authorities can be treated as a negative factor in a rehabilitation assessment.
The Federal Court has in several cases (such as Tejada v. Canada) held that an individual’s past dealings with Canadian immigration authorities is a relevant factor in determining whether an individual is likely to commit a criminal offence in Canada in the future, with the logic being that a person who is willing to break immigration legislation might also be willing to break criminal laws. In a pair of 2018 decisions that neatly summarize the law, Justice Diner held that misrepresenting one’s criminal history can tip the balance towards recidivism over rehabilitation (Yu v.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 and Refugee Board
- 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