It is imperative that employers hiring foreign workers in the International Mobility Program (“IMP“) understand the consequences of non-compliance. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has finally published information on its website which summarizes how it will determine when non-compliance has occurred and what the consequences will be.
Since December 1, 2015, IRCC has had the legislative authority to apply administrative tools, including warning letters, administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs“) and bans on employers accessing the IMP to certain employers where an IRCC officer has determined that an employer has breached the terms and conditions of participating in the IMP.
Breaches that Occurred Before December 1, 2015
It is important to note that the AMP and the bans described below only apply to employer breaches that occurred after December 1, 2015. The penalty to an employer for unjustified breaches that occurred prior to December 1, 2015 is a two-year ban on that employer from being able to hire foreign workers under the IMP. However, while the consequences to an employer for being found non-compliant changed on December 1, 2015, the way in which IRCC assesses whether non-compliance has occurred remains substantially the same.
The Administrative Monetary Penalty Regime
Under IRCC’s AMP regime, employer non-compliance is divided into three types of violations.
Type A violations include where an employer:
- is unable to demonstrate that any information that it provided in respect of a foreign national’s work permit application was accurate during a period of six years beginning on the first day of the foreign national’s employment;
- did not retain document(s) that relates to employer compliance during a period of six years, beginning on the first day of the foreign national’s employment
- did not report at any time and place specified by IRCC to answer questions and provide documents during an IRCC inspection of the employer’s compliance with the IMP;
The first reported British Columbia Supreme Court decision involving the British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program has gone to the BC PNP.Read more ›
On November 10, 2016, the Government of Canada announced that it would be changing how points are calculated in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC“) Express Entry program.
The most significant change is that having a qualifying offer of arranged employment that is supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA“) will no longer guarantee an Invitation to Apply (an “ITA“) for permanent residency.
However, foreign nationals who completed post-secondary education in Canada, as well as certain closed work permit holders in the International Mobility Program, will benefit.
The changes will take effect on effect on November 19, 2016.
Overview of the Current Comprehensive Ranking system
Under Express Entry, a potential applicant to one of Canada’s three main economic immigration programs must complete an online Express Entry profile where they provide information about their skills, work experience, language ability, education, and other details. That individual is then entered into a pool of Express Entry candidates where they are given a score out of 1200 using a Comprehensive Ranking System (“CRS“) based on the information that they provided when creating their Express Entry profile.
Under IRCC’s current CRS, an individual gets 600 points if they have an offer of full-time employment that is either supported by a provincial nomination certificate or by a LMIA. Since Express Entry was launched in January 2015, anyone who possessed a work permit that was supported by a provincial nomination certificate and/or a LMIA met the minimum points threshold because of these 600 points, and was guaranteed an ITA.
This will no longer be the case.
Provincial Nomination Points as of November 19, 2016
As of November 19, 2016, individuals who are nominated by provincial nomination programs in their respective Express Entry programs will continue to receive 600 points.Read more ›
A very helpful case which reminds everyone that “I don’t understand what you are asking” isn’t the same thing as ignoring requests.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/181503/index.doRead more ›
On October 29, 2016, the Government of Canada announced that it would be abolishing the conditional permanent residency regime currently in place in the Family Class and the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class.
Since October, 2012, conditional permanent residency has applied to individuals who are the spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner of their sponsor for two years or less when they submit their sponsorship applications and who do not have children in common with their sponsor when they submit the sponsorship applications. Conditional permanent residents are required to cohabit in a conjugal relationship with their sponsors for a continuous period of two years after the day on which they become permanent residents. If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) determines that conditional permanent residents have breached the condition, then IRCC will declare them inadmissible to Canada, and removal proceedings will be initiated. An exception to this is where there is abuse. Conditional permanent residents are able to appeal such decisions to the Immigration Appeal Division, which can consider humanitarian & compassionate considerations.
From 2013-2015, 58 218 spouses and partners along with their children were admitted to Canada as conditional permanent residents. This represented approximately 42% of admissions of spouses, partners, and their children within Canada’s family reunification programs. During this time, 307 conditional permanent residents requested an exception to the requirement to cohabit with their sponsor due to abuse or neglect. Approximately 80% of these requests were approved.
In my experience, the Canada Border Services Agency was very flexible in its application of the abuse exception, and was very reluctant to dismiss someone’s claim that they had suffered abuse.
In the Gazette, the Government of Canada has now announced that after four years it is unclear whether or not conditional permanent residence has had its intended impact of deterring non-genuine sponsorship applications,Read more ›
On the 7th podcast episode, Tom Davidoff and David Eby joins Peter Edelmann and I to discuss Vancouver’s housing market.
Tom Davidoff is an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business. He is frequently cited in the Vancouver media as being an expert on Vancouver’s housing market, and was part of a team of nine academics who created the B.C. Housing Affordability Fund proposal.
David Eby is the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Vancouver-Point Grey, and was previously the Executive Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. He is a passionate advocate for making Vancouver a more affordable place to live.
The questions that we discussed in the podcast are:
- What has been going on in the Vancouver housing market? How fast have prices been rising?
- Is there evidence that foreign investment / foreign funds has been the cause of the increase in Vancouver housing prices?
- What data is there regarding the amount of foreign home ownership in Vancouver?
- What is the property transfer tax, and what are the new rules on how it applies to foreign buyers?
- Is there evidence that high housing prices impacts the rental market? Does it matter if the landlord is a Canadian or a foreigner?
- Why should high housing prices matter? Why should people think that they should be able to live in a market that they cannot afford?
- Should we move beyond the paradigm of valuing single detached homes?
- What role do international students play in the increase in housing prices?
Last updated on May 12th, 2019
In John v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 915, Justice Brown provided a helpful summary on how psychological reports are to be treated by the Immigration and Refugee Board and visa officers.
Having come to this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the other issues re the psychologist’s report and the Gender Guidelines. However, in connection with the psychologist’s report, the RPD appears to have rejected the psychologist’s report on grounds that were directly and recently criticized by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 (Kanthasamy). The RPD states at paras 13-14 of the Decision:
 The panel, however, does not find [the psychotherapist’s] assessment to be persuasive evidence and determines that [the psychotherapist] is in no position to state categorically that the PC’s mental and emotional state are the result of her alleged problems in Antigua.
 (…) The panel finds that, although the PC may be suffering from anxiety and depression, this may or may not be related to the causes described by the PC in her evidence. Accordingly, the panel gives the psychological assessment, no weight.
In Kanthasamy at para 49, the Supreme Court rejected this approach to psychological reports:
And while the Officer did not “dispute the psychological report presented”, she found that the medical opinion “rest[ed] mainly on hearsay” because the psychologist was “not a witness of the events that led to the anxiety experienced by the applicant”. This disregards the unavoidable reality that psychological reports like the one in this case will necessarily be based to some degree on “hearsay”.Read more ›
On October 20, 2016, IRCC posted Operational Bulletin 627. It restricts what qualifies for “urgent processing” of PR Cards to:
- travel due to an applicant’s own serious illness or the serious illness or death of a family member; or
- to obtain employment or to travel due to employment requirements or opportunity.
Read more ›
I’m writing this post quickly after reading the Federal Court’s decision in Hehar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1054.
In the decision, Justice Brown writes:
Naveen Kumar Verma gave radically different answers from those given by the Applicant during the verification process in response to the same two simple questions. First, in response to the question, “Who does she report to/Who do you report to,” two different individuals, with different job titles were named.
I have never liked the “who do you report to” question. Prior to becoming a Partner at Larlee Rosenberg I theoretically could have given the name of either Peter Larlee or Ryan Rosenberg. If my Legal Assistant were to be asked “who does she report to” I could see her answering that it was either me or Ryan Rosenberg, the Managing Partner. Both answers would be correct.
Contradictory answers to this question often result in great suspicion by visa officers that is difficult to overcome. And it really shouldn’t.Read more ›
Last updated on July 4th, 2019
People who do not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“), and most commonly people who are criminally inadmissible to Canada and who are not eligible to apply for rehabilitation, require Temporary Resident Permits (“TRPs“) in order to enter or remain in Canada.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