Last Updated on August 26, 2021 by Steven Meurrens
Sections 87(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provide that:
87 (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the provincial nominee class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada.
Member of the class
(2) A foreign national is a member of the provincial nominee class if
(a) subject to subsection (5), they are named in a nomination certificate issued by the government of a province under a provincial nomination agreement between that province and the Minister; and
(b) they intend to reside in the province that has nominated them.
In Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 131, Justice Diner wrote:
The assessment of intention, since it is a highly subjective notion, may take into account all indicia, including past conduct, present circumstances, and future plans, as best as can be ascertained from the available evidence and context. In this case, the Applicant clearly expressed her intention to permanently reside in Brampton, Ontario, as well as her intention to finish her PhD in Quebec, which required continued temporary residence in Quebec. These intentions are not contradictory; rather, they are complementary to one another. As summarized above, she also provided statutory declarations from herself, her parents, and her sister setting out the reasons why she intended to move to Ontario, all in cogent terms, which further buttressed her stated intention to live outside of Quebec.
In Tran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 721 Justice Ahmed determined that Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence indicates that if a foreign national is nominated by a province under a provincial nomination program that foreign national is presumed to be able to become economically established in Canada. However, it does not mean that the foreign national is presumed to have an intention to reside in that province. This affirmed the Federal Court’s decision in Kikeshian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 658 and Ransanz v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 1109.