Medical CIC IP-8 (
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf ) Pg 33-34:
"
5.32 Medical examinations
The principal applicant and all dependent children must undergo medical examinations. A physical or mental condition which might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand will not render spouses or common-law partners and their dependent children inadmissible; they are exempt from the A38(1)(c)requirement. For further information on medical examinations see Immigration Medical Exam (IME).
"
Regarding the former spouse, CIC IP-8 Pg 16-18:
"
5.12 Dependent children in the sole custody of a former or separated spouse/common-law partner
The Regulations create an exception regarding the admissibility requirements for principal applicants when their children are in the sole custody of a separated or former spouse or common-law partner. Applicants must however provide documentary proof of the custody arrangements.
Under section 42 of the Act, if an accompanying family member is inadmissible, the principal applicant and all other accompanying family members are also inadmissible. However, only non-accompanying family members described in Section 23 of the Regulations will affect the admissibility of the principal applicant and accompanying family members.
All family members, whether accompanying the principal applicant or not, must be examined. This includes non-accompanying dependent children who are in the sole legal custody or guardianship of someone other than the applicant. If a non-accompanying child is not examined, the applicant will not be able to sponsor that child at a later date as a member of the family class.
A non-accompanying child who is overage at the time CIC receives the permanent resident application does not need to be medically examined. Their inadmissibility would not render the principal applicant inadmissible under R23 because they do not meet the definition of dependent child.
If the applicant attempts to sponsor a non-accompanying dependent child who was not examined, that child will not meet the definition of a member of the family class as they will be described under sub-section
- 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations which stipulates the following: 117(9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if:
- (d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.
Under Section 23 of the Regulations, the inadmissibility of a non-accompanying dependent child, or non-accompanying dependent child of a dependent child will only affect the admissibility of the principal applicant if the principal applicant or an accompanying dependent has custody of the child, or is empowered to act on behalf of that child by virtue of a court order or written agreement, or by operation of law.
In order to establish that the principal applicant or an accompanying family member neither has custody, nor is empowered to act on behalf of an inadmissible non-accompanying dependent child or an inadmissible non-accompanying dependent child of a dependent child, by virtue of a court order or written agreement, applicants must provide documentary proof of the existing custody arrangements for the child.
Officers should inform the applicant that it is their responsibility to make every reasonable effort to have non-accompanying family members examined, even if the applicant demonstrates that the child is in the sole custody of a separated or former spouse or common-law partner, or an individual other than the applicant or an accompanying family member.
The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the officer that reasonable effort was made, without success, to have a non-accompanying child examined. Some scenarios where this may occur include where an ex-spouse refuses to allow a child to be examined or an overage dependant refuses to be examined. Proceeding with an application where a dependent child has not been examined should be an exceptional measure. The applicant cannot simply choose not to have a family member examined.
In cases where an applicant is genuinely unable to make a non-accompanying dependent child available for examination, as an exceptional measure, an officer can grant an exemption from the requirement for the dependant to be examined and the application can proceed. In such cases, to ensure they are fully aware of and accept the consequences of not having the child examined, applicant should be counselled that:
- children who are not examined cannot later be sponsored as members of the family class, despite any future changes in custody arrangements (see Section 5.26 on excluded relationships); and
- the best interests of the child might be better served by having the child examined. If this advice is declined, a record should be entered into GCMS notes.
As there are no set parameters or criteria for determining what is reasonable, officers should examine the particular circumstances of the case and exercise good judgment in assessing the full range of circumstances and making a decision whether or not to grant an exemption and proceed with the application. If an officer believes that custody arrangements are not genuine, but rather, that they were entered into in order to facilitate the applicant’s permanent residence in Canada by hiding the child’s inadmissibility, they should insist on the child being examined.
"
So, send in a court order showing that the other parent has sole custody and explain what's up. They won't render a refusal then.
). The next step will be decision made on the principal applicant side, which will mean approval in principle (AIP). Then a DM letter, a landing appointment letter and finally the landing interview!
