Addendum

1
Addendum

• Regarding family class admissions add Act s.
  67 to the list of provisions in your pink syllabus

2
Family Class Migration

• more women than men, more partners than any other
  relation
• a picture of the family Canada values
• idiosyncratic and contextually limited definition
  of family also here
• Madsen article and cases on Thursday

3
3 Aspects to Address

• Sponsorship who, how and appeals
• Who can be sponsored membership in the family
  class
• Special provisions

4
Sponsorship The Centrepiece

• Act s.13(1) citizens or PRs and 13(2)
  undertakings are binding
• Key regs are 130-137
• 18yrs resides in Canada application
• Undertaking to reimburse for social asstc
  payments (3 yrs, 10 yrs, turning 25)
• Promise to provide basic requirements for
  self no impediments to doing so
• Minimum necessary income Stats Can LICOs,
  exemption for close family if that is small
  (s133(4))

5
Bars to being a sponsor

• not lying about intent
• not subject to a removal order
• not in jail or other like institution
• not convicted of sexual or domestic violence
  offences (unless, long ago, pardoned, rehabd etc)
• not in default on debts where the state has a
  stake (eg. other undertakings)
• not receiving social assistance other than
  disability

6
Sponsorship Appeals

• Immigration Appeal Division
• 3 possible outcomes (s. 67) error, NJ breach,
  humanitarian and compassionate grounds
• two key criteria
• no access if sponsoree rejected bc of the very
  bad admissibility rules
• no hc considerations unless member of the
  family class and sponsor defns satisfied

7
Membership 1 Partners

• married dbl validity marriage rule
• common-law partner 1 yr cohabiting
• conjugal partner conjugal relp for one year
• bad faith provision (reg 4) both aspects now
  relevant
• unacceptably relationships (reg 5)
• N.B. former fiance visa is gone

8
Membership 2 Others

• dependent child basic age 22 unpartnered, see
  s. 2 in regs
• mother or father
• grandparents
• a dependant in a guardianship relp in specified
  cases
• young single orphaned siblings, nieces/nephews
  and grandchildren
• intended adoptees in specified circumstances
• one other relative if n0 in all other
  membership sets
• if not declared at time of application, never a
  member

9
Special Provisions to Note

• family related inadmissibility (Act s 42, Regs s
  23)
• accompanying very close unaccompanying
• excessive demand aspect of health
  inadmissibility limited for close family
• In sum, an inner and outer circle of family
  prevails throughout these provisions

10
Correction to Syllabus notes re exam

• All exams are on the same day Friday Dec 10th

11
Lu v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• bad faith test to be read conjunctively key
  sttty interp point
• consider types of evidence presented (or absent)
• language appellant and applicant
• intention to reside permanently as evidence of
  genuineness only
• N.B. de novo hearings
• issue estoppel not important
• what would your own assessment of this story be?

12
Macapagal v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• test for conjugal relationship interdependence
  and 7 indicative factors
• after this estd move on to bad faith analysis (?
  likely to fail here?)
• N.B. use of Phillipine law
• consequences of tribunal level decision
• how does the evidence here compare with Lu? As
  counsel, what evidence would you submit?

13
Vong v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• mother is undefined in the IRPA and IRPR
• nuturing relationship, recogzd in the community
  possibly other factors, more than one mother is
  possible
• looks to old Act and draws conclusion on the
  basis of a lack of definition
• intent of Parliament to anticipate shifting
  attitudes toward family (??)
• note comments re HC considerations

14
Natt v Canada 2004 FC

• adoption validity and adding members to the
  family class
• they were her dependent children at all times
• culture context of understanding of adoption
• what legislative purpose seems to animate s
  117(9)(d)?

15
Nguyen v Canada 2003 FCTD

• remember trial division no longer exists
• modern purposive approach to statutory
  interpretation look to the object and purpose
  of the legislation, n.b. use of objectives clause
• what do you think of the statement that such an
  interpretation is consistent with the principle
  of family reunification (at para 17)?
• what does para 19 mean?