WEIRD behavior from Passport Canada agent, is this normal?

[Hopeful007]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean happened here. You asked people and they agreed, but then they did not pick up their phone when the government called? If that's it, what happened next?

Yes, but it wasn't for the passport. It was for a job application. I just didn't get the job, what else could happen..

 

[trumprefugee]

They really do not like the no guarantor cases.

Even if it makes you uncomfortable, it is pretty normal to ask in many cases, professional and otherwise. The guarantor is not guaratneeing anything more than that they know you. (I wish they'd change the name really)

The bar is so low that it's basically considered impossible for someone to reside in Canada and not be able to find one. (But yes, some exceptions). It's not meant to be for cases where it's awkward but impossible.

If you want to risk it or deal with legal expense to challenge, that's your right.

The guarantor has to put some personal information on your passport application form, such as date of birth, passport number, home address. Not everyone is comfortable revealing that information to an acquaintance or coworker (for example, I try to avoid telling people my date of birth)

 

[trumprefugee]

This. It's like they expect everyone to fit some kind of mold, not very different from a social credit system, if you don't then too bad you don't deserve a passport. Citizenship I can understand is a privilege but a passport isn't, it's a fundamental right. After clearing all the hurdles for citizenship I now have to jump through more hoops for a passport. For most people this may not seem like such a big deal but for someone with Asperger's syndrome (me) it's an absolute nightmare. I don't make friends easily, I've found every workplace to date to be toxic to the point where I have now quit to become self-employed so I don't have to deal with people. This is why I refuse to conform and I'm prepared to fight this legally if necessary.

My situation is similar. I also don't make friends easily and am eccentric. And almost all of the few friends I have in Canada are other immigrants who immigrated around the same time I did or later (i.e., not citizens). All of them live rather far away. I am friendly with only one citizen who might not mind but who lives pretty far away, so it is not practical. I also feel bad asking coworkers since we have been 100% work from home since the beginning of the pandemic, and the few local ones live far enough away that it would be inconvenient to meet up (plus I don't have reliable transportation myself). I have not been able to make any real friends in my current location, partly due to not having the chance to try to meet people since COVID (I just moved here not too long before the beginning of the pandemic) and partly because my personality type is apparently incompatible with those of most people who live here.

 

[Dreamlad]

My situation is similar. I also don't make friends easily and am eccentric. And almost all of the few friends I have in Canada are other immigrants who immigrated around the same time I did or later (i.e., not citizens). All of them live rather far away. I am friendly with only one citizen who might not mind but who lives pretty far away, so it is not practical. I also feel bad asking coworkers since we have been 100% work from home since the beginning of the pandemic, and the few local ones live far enough away that it would be inconvenient to meet up (plus I don't have reliable transportation myself). I have not been able to make any real friends in my current location, partly due to not having the chance to try to meet people since COVID (I just moved here not too long before the beginning of the pandemic) and partly because my personality type is apparently incompatible with those of most people who live here.

Which state are you from? Montana or Washington?

 

[armoured]

What difference does this make? Why do you think processing officers don't like cases without guarantors?

Let's be clear: are you asking whether I am defending the current system, or why they do not like cases with no guarantors?

I don't work for the government and I have no vested interest in whether they keep this system or change it. (Personally I think it's somewhat archaic but manageable enough that changes will be, realistically, very low priority).

As for why they do not like cases with no guarantors: they see the requirements as absolutely achievable and minimal for the vast majority of people. Something that makes some applicants 'uncomfortable' is not a denial of a fundamental right.

 

[armoured]

Yes, but it wasn't for the passport. It was for a job application. I just didn't get the job, what else could happen..

Completely different situations. There are lots of people I would not be comfortable being a reference for a job application, but for whom I would not think twice about being a reference/guarantor for a passport app.

For a passport: you are not asking anyone to vouch for your character or personality or anything else except that they know you and the facts match those as stated, that as far as they are aware, "you are you."

 

[armoured]

The guarantor has to put some personal information on your passport application form, such as date of birth, passport number, home address. Not everyone is comfortable revealing that information to an acquaintance or coworker (for example, I try to avoid telling people my date of birth)

Repeat: something that makes you uncomfortable is an inconvenience, not a trampling of some fundamental right. (Note, not claiming you said this, so no offense intended, can't keep track of all the posts and by whom; but 'inconvenience' is a claim that will not stand up to any legal scrutiny whatsoever).

Also worth noting: acting as a reference or guarantor for a passport is something that is /was relatively standard for a fairly broad variety of professional jobs, meaning: if you have had interactions with a lawyer, accountant, priest/rabbi/other religious officiant, director of a school, bank official (usually meaning jsut a branch manager), notary, doctor, almost any type of city/provincial/federal official, etc,. etc., etc. - you should NOT feel odd or uncomfortable about asking them. (The rules for guarantors used to be quite a bit more strict so this type of request used to be common). It's basically considered part of their societal responsibility (because they have licenses to operate from the government).

Really, are there that many people who've resided in Canada for three + years and don't ahve a doctor/dentist/lawyer/accountant that they've interacted with from time to time?

Background: my father was a minister and he frequently got these requests (again, back when it was more strict about guarantors). He NEVER outright turned anyone down - if he felt he couldn't sign the forms (because they weren't true (ie he just didn't know the person long enough), he helped them find the people who would help (and would call them and ask them to assist).

 

[armoured]

If there is depression or introversion involved, forget it. This requirement really is inconvenient.

I'm going to make a suggestion here that some may not like: applicants for whom this requirement goes well beyond inconvenience or discomfort into (serious) depression or harmful and debilitating anxiety (or other such with significant potential consequences):

-write a personal statement, sworn or not, or get supporting statements from medical or other similar professionals, and briefly make the same point you seem to be making: that fulfilling this requirement is not just an inconvenience, but one that cannot be met by the applicant. Ideally with at least a reference to a medical/psychological condition (important note: one that a professional has diagnosed and would confirm in writing, not just a statement that "I'm an introvert.").

The difference here is enormous, both legally and practically: say you've been 'inconvenienced', there is close to no legal leg upon which to stand.

Specify you have a specific diagnosis and risks with some (ideally brief) explanation why that makes the 'no guarantor' route the only realistic one, it will probably be treated fairly and quickly and will definitely have better legal chances.

 

[akbardxb]

Let's be clear: are you asking whether I am defending the current system, or why they do not like cases with no guarantors?

I don't work for the government and I have no vested interest in whether they keep this system or change it. (Personally I think it's somewhat archaic but manageable enough that changes will be, realistically, very low priority).

As for why they do not like cases with no guarantors: they see the requirements as absolutely achievable and minimal for the vast majority of people. Something that makes some applicants 'uncomfortable' is not a denial of a fundamental right.

You said they don’t like non-guarantor applications. Hence the question. It’s your POV hence asking to clairfy and not whether the process is right or wrong.

 

[kmoser]

I'm going to make a suggestion here that some may not like: applicants for whom this requirement goes well beyond inconvenience or discomfort into (serious) depression or harmful and debilitating anxiety (or other such with significant potential consequences):

-write a personal statement, sworn or not, or get supporting statements from medical or other similar professionals, and briefly make the same point you seem to be making: that fulfilling this requirement is not just an inconvenience, but one that cannot be met by the applicant. Ideally with at least a reference to a medical/psychological condition (important note: one that a professional has diagnosed and would confirm in writing, not just a statement that "I'm an introvert.").

The difference here is enormous, both legally and practically: say you've been 'inconvenienced', there is close to no legal leg upon which to stand.

Specify you have a specific diagnosis and risks with some (ideally brief) explanation why that makes the 'no guarantor' route the only realistic one, it will probably be treated fairly and quickly and will definitely have better legal chances.

Not a bad suggestion, I might ask them if I can submit such a statement if they call me to say they can't approve my application.
But there might be cases where it's not about debilitating anxiety or mere inconvenience. What if a person does know eligible guarantors but none of them agrees to act as a guarantor, whatever their reasons may be (even if they are fully aware that the role doesn't entail vouching for the applicant's character, past or suitability)? How is it not a denial of a fundamental right to be refused a passport then if an applicant has tried to persuade every eligible person they know and still could not find one willing to be their guarantor?

 

[armoured]

You said they don’t like non-guarantor applications. Hence the question. It’s your POV hence asking to clairfy and not whether the process is right or wrong.

Yes, i believe they treat these as very exceptional and rare and consider there should be close to zero such cases - not zero but close to . And hence they will get strict scrutiny.

 

[armoured]

Not a bad suggestion, I might ask them if I can submit such a statement if they call me to say they can't approve my application.
But there might be cases where it's not about debilitating anxiety or mere inconvenience. What if a person does know eligible guarantors but none of them agrees to act as a guarantor, whatever their reasons may be (even if they are fully aware that the role doesn't entail vouching for the applicant's character, past or suitability)? How is it not a denial of a fundamental right to be refused a passport then if an applicant has tried to persuade every eligible person they know and still could not find one willing to be their guarantor?

To give a somewhat dry answer:

-reasonable requirements for getting a passport are not a denial of rights. (As with almost any other administrative procedure - you can have a 'right' to health care or whatever, but asking you to demonstrate you have that right is not unreasonable).
-It will be VERY hard to show that you are being refused a right if you're not also demonstrating that you simply cannot meet those reasonable requirements. Discomfort and inconvenience is not a denial of rights.

The onus is actually on the applicant most of the time to show they have such a right. In case of a dispute about whether they met the requirements (proof of that right), normal timeframes go out the window.

So unfortunately, the most likely scenario is not that you get refused, but it takes MUCH longer to get your passport than you would like - nope, not a denial of rights. Yes, you can use the 'no guarantor' procedure - and if that (normally) takes two years because applicants aren't meeting reasonable requirements, then ... suck eggs. (Not a legal term)

Proving the requirements are not unreasonable - almost impssibile UNLESS you show some reason you deserve some additional facility.

Which leads to the big exception to my simple version above: the government should not discriminate on the basis of eg disabilities. Show you have a disability - a medical/psychological condition - you have an argument that will PROBABLY be listened to. At least you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Probably . (But you don't want to have to go to court for it - it'll just take a long time and cost you money).

[I am not going to get into whether eg Asp / autism spectrum or some other specific condition meets those standards - not a lawyer, not a specialist. And I don't think going to coourt helps many people, at least in their specific cases. But believe me, I THINK a lot of government employees, including some lawyers, will at least think about it. They will not give a lot of consideration (IMO) to a general complaint of "It made me uncomfortable."]

 

[kmoser]

To give a somewhat dry answer:

-reasonable requirements for getting a passport are not a denial of rights. (As with almost any other administrative procedure - you can have a 'right' to health care or whatever, but asking you to demonstrate you have that right is not unreasonable).
-It will be VERY hard to show that you are being refused a right if you're not also demonstrating that you simply cannot meet those reasonable requirements. Discomfort and inconvenience is not a denial of rights.

The onus is actually on the applicant most of the time to show they have such a right. In case of a dispute about whether they met the requirements (proof of that right), normal timeframes go out the window.

So unfortunately, the most likely scenario is not that you get refused, but it takes MUCH longer to get your passport than you would like - nope, not a denial of rights. Yes, you can use the 'no guarantor' procedure - and if that (normally) takes two years because applicants aren't meeting reasonable requirements, then ... suck eggs. (Not a legal term)

Proving the requirements are not unreasonable - almost impssibile UNLESS you show some reason you deserve some additional facility.

Which leads to the big exception to my simple version above: the government should not discriminate on the basis of eg disabilities. Show you have a disability - a medical/psychological condition - you have an argument that will PROBABLY be listened to. At least you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Probably . (But you don't want to have to go to court for it - it'll just take a long time and cost you money).

[I am not going to get into whether eg Asp / autism spectrum or some other specific condition meets those standards - not a lawyer, not a specialist. And I don't think going to coourt helps many people, at least in their specific cases. But believe me, I THINK a lot of government employees, including some lawyers, will at least think about it. They will not give a lot of consideration (IMO) to a general complaint of "It made me uncomfortable."]

I don't think you really addressed the part highlighted which was, "How is it not a denial of a fundamental right to be refused a passport then if an applicant has tried to persuade every eligible person they know and still could not find one willing to be their guarantor? " Here we're not talking about inconvenience or disability, but a hypothetical situation in which the applicant (who is without any disability and doesn't mind being inconvenienced by asking every eligible guarantor they know) asked every eligible guarantor they know and they all refused. Applicant has been in Canada for say, 4 years, and they emailed 8 different eligible guarantors they know all of whom refused to act as their guarantor- likelihood of them all refusing is low but it is a real possibility. Would the refusal emails from these people count as proof that the applicant made every effort to get a guarantor but none agreed? How would such a situation be dealt with? Should the applicant wait another two years and get to know more eligible guarantors in the hope that one might agree to sign his application?

 

[armoured]

I don't think you really addressed the part highlighted which was, "How is it not a denial of a fundamental right to be refused a passport then if an applicant has tried to persuade every eligible person they know and still could not find one willing to be their guarantor? "

I did address.

If you get a refusal, that COULD be a denial of rights. Maybe.

If it takes two years and you have to demonstrate "I really, really tried" - not a denial of rights. It is a delay of rights on reasonable grounds, that you did not meet reasonable administrative requirements to demonstrate you have such a right. And if you then get a refusal and it takes several more years to go through courts to challenge, and you then win on some narrow grounds that applies to only you - congrats, you then got your rights but you haven't won much more than the thing you could have received in the first place by trying harder.

(Oh and after two years of legal challenges your lawyer now is someone who would serve as guarantor)

 

[kmoser]

I did address.

If you get a refusal, that COULD be a denial of rights. Maybe.

If it takes two years and you have to demonstrate "I really, really tried" - not a denial of rights. It is a delay of rights on reasonable grounds, that you did not meet reasonable administrative requirements to demonstrate you have such a right. And if you then get a refusal and it takes several more years to go through courts to challenge, and you then win on some narrow grounds that applies to only you - congrats, you then got your rights but you haven't won much more than the thing you could have received in the first place by trying harder.

(Oh and after two years of legal challenges your lawyer now is someone who would serve as guarantor)

You can't be serious. I must say the worst part of posting here is seeing people defending an archaic system that relies on one's social network in order to be eligible for a passport.