Category: Uncategorized

R v. Zora is a 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision involving the criminal offence of breaching bail conditions. It is relevant in the Canadian immigration context as individuals who are convicted of this crime in Canada, or who are convicted of or commit an equivalent offence abroad, are inadmissible to the country.

Borderlines · #38 – R v. Zora – The Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Breach of Bail Conditions, with Sarah Runyon

Steven and Deanna are joined by Sarah Runyon, who was counsel for Mr. Zora at the Supreme Court. We discuss how bail works in Canada, the offence of breach of bail conditions, and the implications of the Supreme Court decision.

 » Read more about: Borderlines Podcast #38 – R v. Zora – The Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Breach of Bail Conditions, with Sarah Runyon  »

Vavilov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)is a 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a new framework for the standard of review in Canadian administrative law.

Borderlines · #35 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Vavilov  » Read more about: Borderlines Podcast #35 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Vavilov  »

As the summer nears to an end, students will be preparing for the start of the school year.  They will be double checking that they have the most recent version of Zoom on their computers, and possibly upgrading their home internet.  COVID-19 has impacted everyone, and international students have especially been left wondering what their academic future in Canada holds.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has in response to COVID-19 implemented several public policies that international students should know.  Most of them can be found on the IRCC website here:

• https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/visitors-foreign-workers-students.html; and here
• https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/coronavirus/temporary-residence/study-permit.html

Prospective and current international students should check the above webpagse daily.  The date that they were last modified can be found at the bottom.  Unfortunately, IRCC updates its COVID-19 policies through stealth editing, so it may be advisable to save the webpage to PDF to track changes.

Here are some of the key measures.

Restrictions on Travelling to Canada

As of July 15, 2020 international students who have a valid study permit, or were approved for a study permit on or before March 18, 2020, can travel to Canada for a non-discretionary purpose. In determining whether a student’s travel to Canada is non-discretionary, the Canada Border Services Agency will consider whether they are established residing and studying in Canada, whether they are expected to begin studying upon arrival, whether their presence in Canada is necessary for their continued participation in their program, whether pursuing online studies is not an option for their school or from their home country, and whether the semester has been cancelled or delayed.

Those who are travelling by air need to pass a health check conducted by an airline before they will be allowed to board their flight. 

 » Read more about: COVID-19 and Students  »

Last updated on June 23rd, 2020

Section 38 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their condition is (a) likely to be a danger to the public, (b) is likely to be a danger to public safety, or (c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.  The excessive demand inadmissibility provisions are designed, in part, to reduce the impacts of immigration on Canada’s publicly funded health and social services systems.

People who have a medical condition should not immediately assume, however, that they will be inadmissible to Canada.  First, certain types of immigrants are exempted from excessive demand inadmissibility.  Second, in 2018, the Government of Canada increased the threshold for excessive demand and also excluded certain types of health and social services from rendering someone inadmissible.  Third, those with medical conditions may not be inadmissible if they can show that they will not be a burden on Canada’s publicly funded health and social services systems.  Fourth, the data suggests that the immigration applications of many applicants who are initially declared medically inadmissible are approved.

Immigrants Exempted from Excessive Demand Inadmissibility

Excessive demand inadmissibility does not apply to the spouse, common-law partner or child of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is sponsoring them to immigrate.

It also does not apply to refugees and protected persons.

The 2018 Changes

On June 1, 2018 the Liberal Government of Canada enacted a Temporary Public Policy Regarding Excessive Demand on Health and Social Services (the “Public Policy“)

In order to understand the changes it is necessary to understand some key terms.

Section 1 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) defines excessive demand as:

(a) a demand on health services or social services for which the anticipated costs would likely exceed average Canadian per capita health services and social services costs over a period of five consecutive years immediately following an individual’s most recent medical exam,

 » Read more about: Excessive Demand  »

Section 109 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD“) may vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection if it determines that the decision was obtained through misrepresentation. Specifically, it states:

Vacation of refugee protection

109 (1) The Refugee Protection Division may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection, if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.

Rejection of application

(2) The Refugee Protection Division may reject the application if it is satisfied that other sufficient evidence was considered at the time of the first determination to justify refugee protection.

Allowance of application

(3) If the application is allowed, the claim of the person is deemed to be rejected and the decision that led to the conferral of refugee protection is nullified.

The approach to an application to vacate a decision granting refugee status involves two steps:

First, the RPD must find that the decision granting refugee protection was obtained as a result of a direct or indirect misrepresentation, or a withholding of material facts relating to a relevant matter; and

Second, the RPD should consider whether there remains sufficient evidence that was considered at the time of the positive determination to justify refugee protection and, if so, the RPD may reject the application to vacate, notwithstanding the misrepresentation

The Immigration and Refugee Board’s statistics on vacation hearings can be found here.

Vacation applications
Finalized
Pending

Allowed
Dismissed
Abandoned
Withdrawn & Other
Total

2020 (January to March)
21
31
1
0
2
34
329

2019
210
279
13
0
3
295
342

2018
173
369
5
0
14
388
427

2017
238
70
0
0
3
73
643​

2016
215
21
0
0
6
27
478

2015
141
61
6
0
3
70
283

2014
240
135
13
0
7
155
212

2013
128
95
13
0
14
122
127

Pursuant to Justice Russell’s decision in Bafakih v.

 » Read more about: Vacating Refugee Status  »

Canada is currently in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Its borders are closed to discretionary travel.  Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has suspended the processing of most temporary residence applications.  The Canada Border Services Agency has put a pause on removing people from Canada.  Civil servants are largely working from home.  The Royal Bank of Canada is forecasting that 170,000 fewer people will become immigrants than what was planned pre-COVID-19.

At the same time, many provinces have begun reopening their economies.  The Orders in Council closing the Canada – US border and Canada’s airports to international travel are supposed to expire on June 21 and June 30 respectively, although they may be extended.

The question that many are asking is what comes next for Canada’s immigration system.

Backlogs

While the processing of most temporary residence applications has been suspended during COVID-19 the ability of foreign nationals to submit them has continued.  The implication is obvious.  When COVID-19 ends there will be a massive backlog of applications.   Significant processing delays should be expected.

The systemic delays will not be limited to the ability of visa officers to process applications.  The collection of biometrics at Service Canada and most Visa Application Centers has been suspended since mid-March.  When these centers re-open applicants will need to schedule appointments.  Unless capacity is expanded each day that they remain closed is a day that will need to be added to how long it will take to schedule an appointment in the future.

Prior to COVID-19 the deadline to give biometrics after being instructed to do so was 30 days. At the start of COVID-19 this was extended to 90 days. New biometric instruction letters do not have a deadline. It would not be surprising if applicants in the future will be told that they have six months to provide biometrics until the backlog is clear.

 » Read more about: The Other Side of COVID-19  »

While the assessment of the bona fides of a marriage has long been a requirement in Canada’s family reunification programs, it has traditionally not been a significant factor in temporary residence applications.  This has recently changed, especially for those submitting applications to Canadian visa posts in India, and at the start of 2020 there were numerous Federal Court of Canada decisions involving refusals of open spousal work permit applications because of concerns over the genuineness of marriages.  Many applicants were also barred from entering Canada for five years due to misrepresentation.

As discussed below, the increase in misrepresentation findings in open spousal work permit applications has been a deliberate Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) policy choice.  Canadian visa officials are explicitly trying to “send a message” to communities in India where they believe that marriages of convenience are increasingly occurring.  Federal Court jurisprudence on the procedural fairness required in such cases is still developing, and it remains to be seen whether the courts are going to impose greater procedural fairness requirements than what is generally expected in temporary residence applications.

In order to understand the e-mails and internal public policies obtained through Access to Information Act requests below, it is important to understand that there are two types of open-spousal work permits.   The first is for the spouses or common-law partners of skilled workers, which fall under Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) exemption classification C-41.  The second is for spouses or common-law partners of full-time international students in Canada, or LMIA exemption classification C-42. Other acronyms to be aware of include R4, which is the Canadian immigration regulation that prohibits marriages of convenience (or MOCs) from Canadian immigration programs, and A40, which is the Canadian immigration legislative provision which bans people who have committed misrepresentation from immigrating to Canada for five years.

 » Read more about: Open Spousal Work Permits and Marriage Genuineness  »

Regulation 205(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a work permit may be issued under section 200 to a foreign national who intends to perform work that would create or maintain reciprocal employment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada in other countries.

The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) state that visiting professors may be issued work permits pursuant to R205(b).

Eligibility

To be eligible, an applicant must:

• be applying for a work permit of not more than two academic years;
• to take a position with a post-secondary institution; and
• retain their position abroad.

Visiting professors may also include those on sabbatical who are doing collaborative research with a Canadian post-secondary institution.

The term “retain their position abroad” means that the professor must maintaing their employment abroad as a professor.

Extensions

Work permits for visiting professors are authorized for a maximum period of two academic years.

Visiting professors are not eligible to extend their work permits under this category, and their employers must apply for a Labour Market Impact Assessment to extend their stay.

 » Read more about: Visiting Professors and Work Permits  »

Whether an individual is remorseful is a factor in assessing humanitarian & compassionate considerations.

In Pu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 600 Justice Diner held that:

With respect to remorse, the IAD concluded that the Applicant’s remorse was not genuine principally because (a) she had continued to misrepresent her position in 2009, and (b) at the IAD hearing she had attempted to deflect responsibility for her earlier actions. The IAD acknowledged the Applicant’s expressions of remorse at the appeal, but found that she had had since 2009 to take responsibility for her actions, and that the Applicant was ultimately remorseful only for having been caught at the hearing — several years after her initial interview with CBSA, during which she again misrepresented the circumstances of the marriage.

Although the Applicant disagrees that she deflected responsibility at the IAD appeal, I am of the view that the IAD’s findings were reasonably open to it based on the evidence before it. I also note that the IAD’s reasoning is consistent with other areas of law where late-stage accountability can weigh significantly against a party who seeks discretionary relief.

To conclude on this issue, I will cite from the IAD’s comments in Lin v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII 26505 (CA IRB), which are on point for this case:

Remorse is defined as deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed, and a feeling of being sorry for doing something bad or wrong in the past. There are two components to remorse in the context of a misrepresentation: one involves the actions preceding the IAD appeal; and the other is the expression of remorse in testimony at the appeal itself.

 » Read more about: Remorse  »