An overview of the immigration platforms, and general historic policies, of Canada’s political parties. 1:45 – Where do the parties stand with regards to letting provinces decide who immigrates? 13:28 – Immigration levels 23:30 – What are the promises with regards to border security and the Safe Third Country Agreement? 36:00 – Temporary Foreign Workers 42:00 – Application fees 46:00 – Settlement services and values tests 48:00 – Where parties can work together on and general trends.
Sponsoring Relatives other than Spouses, Parents, and Children
Canadian immigration legislation provides that a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may sponsor their spouse, common-law partner, child, parents or grand-parents to immigrate to Canada. It also provides that in certain circumstances a Canadian may sponsor another relative. Section 117(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) provides that: A foreign national is a member of the family class if, with respect to a sponsor, the foreign national is a relative of the sponsor, regardless of age, if the sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father (i) who is a Canadian citizen, Indian or permanent resident, or (ii) whose application to enter and remain in Canada as a permanent resident the sponsor may otherwise sponsor. The following are key things to know about sponsoring relatives other than spouses, common-law partners, children, parents or grand-parents. 1. The Canadian sponsor must … Read More
The Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Vavilov
In December 2018 I wrote an article for The Canadian Immigrant about a Supreme Court of Canada case that had just been heard which could have a significant impact on Canadian immigration law. The case, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Alexander Vavilov, was about whether a child who was born in Canada to Russian spies is a Canadian citizen. The Supreme Court of Canada before hearing the case announced that it was considering changing the law on how a legal principle called the “standard of review” works in Canadian administrative law. On December 19, 2019 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision. The Supreme Court created a revised framework for the standard of review in judicial review applications. Vavilov has significant implications for how Canada’s Federal Court will review the decisions of immigration officials. Understanding The Standard of Review As I wrote in December, the standard of review pertains to how courts review administrative tribunal decisions. In the immigration context, administrative tribunals include visa officers, border officials and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada members. The Federal Court has the jurisdiction to review all decisions of these tribunals, including visa refusals, stays of removal, deportation orders, etc. The … Read More
Implausibility
One issue that applicants, and in particular refugee claimants, face is that their stories often sound implausible to third party observers. Valtchev v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776 is the leading decision on implausibility findings in the refugee context. There, Justice Muldoon stated: A tribunal may make adverse findings of credibility based on the implausibility of an applicant’s story provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said to exist. However, plausibility findings should be made only in the clearest of cases, i.e., if the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant. A tribunal must be careful when rendering a decision based on a lack of plausibility because refugee claimants come from diverse cultures, and actions which appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards might be plausible when considered from within the claimant’s milieu. In Leung v. M.E.I. (1994), 81 F.T.R. 303 (T.D.), Associate Chief Justice Jerome stated at page 307: Nevertheless, the Board is under a very clear duty to justify its credibility findings with specific and clear reference to … Read More
De Facto Family Members
Many people are often try to sponsor an adult sibling only to learn that adult siblings (and adult children) are not eligible to be sponsored under the family class. However, in certain cases, such individuals may be eligible for humanitarian & compassionate grounds as de facto family members.
Bridging Open Work Permits
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) International Mobility Program has a bridging open work permit program for temporary foreign workers currently working in Canada who have submitted permanent residence applications under the Federal Skilled Worker Program (“FSWP“), the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC“), the Provincial Nominee Program (“PNP“), or the Federal Skilled Trades Program (“FSTP“). Bridging open work permits are a huge and positive development for Canadian employers with employees who have filed permanent residence applications under one of Canada’s economic programs. CIC’s introduction of bridging work permits removes a significant issue which many temporary foreign workers previously encountered, namely that they were unable to extend their work permits during CIC’s processing of their permanent resident applications without their employers first having to obtain positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, an uncertain process which often takes months. Eligibility Temporary foreign workers currently working in Canada are eligible to apply for a bridging work permit if they: are a foreign national in Canada; have valid status on a work permit that is due to expire within 4 months; be the principal applicant on an appliation for permanent residence under the FSWP, CEC, PNP or FSTC; received a positive eligibility decision on their permanent residence … Read More
Chipping Away At Discretion
Discretion is the freedom to decide what should be done in a given situation. In the criminal justice system, in 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC“) in R v. Anderson recognized that prosecutorial discretion “is a necessary part of a properly functioning criminal justice system.” Examples of prosecutorial discretion include the decision to repudiate a plea agreement, the decision to pursue a dangerous offender application, the decision to prefer a direct indictment, the decision to charge multiple offences, the decision to negotiate a plea, the decision to proceed summarily or by indictment, and the decision to initiate an appeal. Similarly, in R. v. Beaudry, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of police discretion, noting that: Applying the letter of the law to the practical, real‑life situations faced by police officers in performing their everyday duties requires that certain adjustments be made. Although these adjustments may sometimes appear to deviate from the letter of the law, they are crucial and are part of the very essence of the proper administration of the criminal justice system, or to use the words of s. 139(2), are perfectly consistent with the “course of justice”. The ability — indeed the duty — to use one’s judgment to … Read More
Adjourning an Immigration Division Hearing
Rule 43(1) of the Immigration Division Rules, SOR/2002-229 states: Application to change the date or time of a hearing 43 (1) A party may make an application to the Division to change the date or time of a hearing. Factors (2) In deciding the application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including (a) in the case of a date and time that was fixed after the Division consulted or tried to consult the party, the existence of exceptional circumstances for allowing the application; (b) when the party made the application; (c) the time the party has had to prepare for the hearing; (d) the efforts made by the party to be ready to start or continue the hearing; (e) the nature and complexity of the matter to be heard; (f) whether the party has counsel; (g) any previous delays and the reasons for them; (h) whether the time and date fixed for the hearing was peremptory; and (i) whether allowing the application would unreasonably delay the proceedings or likely cause an injustice. Duty to appear at the hearing (3) Unless a party receives a decision from the Division allowing the application, the party must appear for the hearing at the … Read More
Where Canada’s Political Parties Stand on Immigration
On October 21, 2019 Canada will have its 43rd Parliamentary election. There are six main political parties running. The first is the Liberal Party of Canada, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Liberals are generally regarded as a centrist party and have governed since October, 2015. The second is the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Andrew Scheer. The Conservatives are a centre-right party that previously governed Canada from 2006-2015 under Stephen Harper. The third is the New Democratic Party, a left-wing or progressive party, led by Jagmeet Singh. The fourth is the Green Party of Canada, led by Elizabeth May, a party that is typically known for its environmental platform, although it does have a detailed platform on all of the important issues facing Canada. The fifth is the Bloc Québécois, led by Yves Francois Blanchet. The Bloc is a Quebec nationalist party that only runs candidates in Quebec. Finally, there is the People’s Party of Canada, a recently formed right-wing party led by Maxime Bernier. As of writing, polls suggest that Canada is likely heading to a minority government. This means that none of the political parties above will win enough seats to govern without the support … Read More
Obstruction of Justice and Resisting Arrest
Section 129 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 states: Offences relating to public or peace officer: 129 Every one who (a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer, (b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or (c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, is guilty of (d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (e) an offence punishable on summary conviction. There are several principles pertaining to s. 129 of the Criminal Code that can be helpful to determining equivalency. Ancillary Powers Doctrine In the Supreme Court of Canada decision Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45, the Supreme Court of Canda held that a police power to arrest someone who is acting lawfully in order to prevent a breach of the peace is not reasonably necessary for … Read More