Whatsapp Group for Permanent Residency Obligations: UN and other Diplomatic Missions Employees

[montrealworker]

Hi,

can we build a whatsapp group for UN and other Diplomatic Missions Employees as there are PRs who intend to raise a joint legal case, if the number reaches 50 it will be great , Residency Obligations as Canada is a founding member of these group and finance it at large .

 

[scylla]

Hi,

can we build a whatsapp group for UN and other Diplomatic Missions Employees as there are PRs who intend to raise a joint legal case, if the number reaches 50 it will be great , Residency Obligations as Canada is a founding member of these group and finance it at large .

Please make sure you review previous cases. This has already been unsuccessfully challenged in court.

 

[montrealworker]

Please make sure you review previous cases. This has already been unsuccessfully challenged in court.

hi scylla it will be difficult if we hire a negative person like you for sure ... no worries we talked to someone who knows the law, i recommend you apply for law school before talking about legal cases.

 

[armoured]

hi scylla it will be difficult if we hire a negative person like you for sure ... no worries we talked to someone who knows the law, i recommend you apply for law school before talking about legal cases.

Please send me the info by DM/mailbox. I'm interested in the topic and have family potentially impacted by this (although probably will not be), at any rate, would like to follow.

That said: I don't see why you're being rude to @scylla. I'm interested in the topic - but from long background and having looked at it, I believe scylla is correct and there is actually no strictly legal remedy. (If someone thinks there is, I'd like to hear it). The comment "apply for law school before talking about legal cases" is silly - if someone can't explain their legal point, they almost always do not have one. (Someone with an actual legal education would be better placed to provide their sources and explain, mind - not just huff and puff that someone disagrees with them.)

I believe any potential remedy is legislative (i.e. political) and would require a change in law. Further, it's not clear to me that this would find support at the political level (some related issues UN employees face might, in my opinion).

 

[montrealworker]

Please send me the info by DM/mailbox. I'm interested in the topic and have family potentially impacted by this (although probably will not be), at any rate, would like to follow.

That said: I don't see why you're being rude to @scylla. I'm interested in the topic - but from long background and having looked at it, I believe scylla is correct and there is actually no strictly legal remedy. (If someone thinks there is, I'd like to hear it). The comment "apply for law school before talking about legal cases" is silly - if someone can't explain their legal point, they almost always do not have one. (Someone with an actual legal education would be better placed to provide their sources and explain, mind - not just huff and puff that someone disagrees with them.)

I believe any potential remedy is legislative (i.e. political) and would require a change in law. Further, it's not clear to me that this would find support at the political level (some related issues UN employees face might, in my opinion).

its about interpretation of words and scylla tries to push it to negative and discourages others from improving understanding... i talked to a skilled lawyer and he mentioned thay small canadian business of 1$ million cant be compared to 100+ millions invested in UN at the end its a loss-loss for both ends, not to mention going to court and wasting everyones time when many PRs are married to Canadians ... separating PR from Canadian families who benefit from that ?

 

[armoured]

i talked to a skilled lawyer and he mentioned thay small canadian business of 1$ million cant be compared to 100+ millions invested in UN at the end its a loss-loss for both ends, not to mention going to court and wasting everyones time when many PRs are married to Canadians ... separating PR from Canadian families who benefit from that ?

I don't see a legal argument in what you're explaining (although the lawyer refers to court cases, that's not evidence of a winning legal argument).

So is what you're suggesting is recommending / requesting a change in the law and lobbying for it? That's the political-legislative route I referred to. It's not, strictly speaking, a legal argument - even if you're requesting a change in the law. (I'm not even sure a lawyer is needed for that per se, although potentially useful).

I assume the idea is to either change the legislation to explicitly say that time spent abroad while working for a UN agency / other international agency of which Canada a member will 'count' for residency obligation - either by explicitly changing legislation or 'deeming' (somehow) that such agencies will be considered 'Canadian' for purposes of the residency obligation.

Having looked at the legislation in the past, my (non-lawyer) intuition is that the 'deeming' route could not be done without legislative changes (eg through regulations and/or orders-in-council instead of government passing the changes through parliament). [A side note: I'm not sure that all lawyers have the requisite experience to opine on what route works - the task of drafting and adopting legislation, and the requirements and procedures to do so, are rather distinct from what most lawyers do.]

If I'm right, this raises the difficulty considerably of lobbying successfully for any such change in policy. Because my impression is that governments don't undertake lightly ANY legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - it's extremely political. Small technical changes that don't have political valence/have small political constituencies don't have good prospects, unless they can be bundled in with other changes.

 

[montrealworker]

I don't see a legal argument in what you're explaining (although the lawyer refers to court cases, that's not evidence of a winning legal argument).

So is what you're suggesting is recommending / requesting a change in the law and lobbying for it? That's the political-legislative route I referred to. It's not, strictly speaking, a legal argument - even if you're requesting a change in the law. (I'm not even sure a lawyer is needed for that per se, although potentially useful).

I assume the idea is to either change the legislation to explicitly say that time spent abroad while working for a UN agency / other international agency of which Canada a member will 'count' for residency obligation - either by explicitly changing legislation or 'deeming' (somehow) that such agencies will be considered 'Canadian' for purposes of the residency obligation.

Having looked at the legislation in the past, my (non-lawyer) intuition is that the 'deeming' route could not be done without legislative changes (eg through regulations and/or orders-in-council instead of government passing the changes through parliament). [A side note: I'm not sure that all lawyers have the requisite experience to opine on what route works - the task of drafting and adopting legislation, and the requirements and procedures to do so, are rather distinct from what most lawyers do.]

If I'm right, this raises the difficulty considerably of lobbying successfully for any such change in policy. Because my impression is that governments don't undertake lightly ANY legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - it's extremely political. Small technical changes that don't have political valence/have small political constituencies don't have good prospects, unless they can be bundled in with other changes.

very nice info, its helping our whatsapp group