Landed as PR, now left Canada for long term period
- Thread starter usthb
- Start date
I am going now to reply to this DISASTREOUS Thread which has caused me unnecessary worries up to the point of me buying a ticket to return to Canada and figure out myself what is going on.
- So I travelled back to the province to check.
- As far as the province I am in is concerned, PHYSICAL presence in the province shall be at least 6 months per year (cumulative) as minimum. If it is determined that 6 months have elapsed with the resident not returning to the province, the coverage is stopped on "non-residency grounds". From that date it is stopped, any bills incurred onward will be at resident's expense (as a matter of fact there is no coverage). Past bills (during period of - de facto - presence) are covered and premiums (of course) are not be reimbursed. I asked the officer if there is such a thing as "back payment" of bills, they responded NO.
- I asked the officer if this (coverage cancelation on non residency ground) can be further considered as an offense, they said NO. As a matter of fact, I have been very transparent with them on all my travels, dates, personal constraints and considerations which led me to leave Canada, etc. and all details is recorded in my personal file.
- When coverage is cancelled, the resident must re-apply all over again should they return to Canada ; this means that there is waiting period applicable again (3 months).
Conclusions:
- Responses of this thread have been misleading with an exagerated tone regarding the consequences; in my specific case, it created distress and worries. It is good to plan for the worst, but creating fears and worries in people is such a shame.
- Not only people should not abuse of the system, they should act in good faith and protect it. On the other hand, personal circumstances vary but there is a tendency nowadays to put all the people "in the same basket" (the basket of the "abusers"). Shame.
- This post is in no way an incentive for people to play around rules, finding loop holes etc. To my opinion, the health coverage system is designed for people that are really settling in Canada; if you deviate from this line (to a limited extent), it is not yet a high crime and this why people must act with a good citizenship spirit, be of good faith and be REASONABLE. That is my disclaimer.
This year I will have stayed ~5 months in the province. So I will have my coverage cancelled and I find this to be fair enough. There are no other dramatic consequences whatsoever. I accept the fact, that upon returning to Canada, I will have to re-apply again (going through a waiting period).
The original post was simply to inquire what should I do so things go smoothly for me, and the thread derailed into accusations of abuse. Some advisors are immigrants themselves. Maybe you know the expression now: "to be more royalist then the king".
- So I travelled back to the province to check.
- As far as the province I am in is concerned, PHYSICAL presence in the province shall be at least 6 months per year (cumulative) as minimum. If it is determined that 6 months have elapsed with the resident not returning to the province, the coverage is stopped on "non-residency grounds". From that date it is stopped, any bills incurred onward will be at resident's expense (as a matter of fact there is no coverage). Past bills (during period of - de facto - presence) are covered and premiums (of course) are not be reimbursed. I asked the officer if there is such a thing as "back payment" of bills, they responded NO.
- I asked the officer if this (coverage cancelation on non residency ground) can be further considered as an offense, they said NO. As a matter of fact, I have been very transparent with them on all my travels, dates, personal constraints and considerations which led me to leave Canada, etc. and all details is recorded in my personal file.
- When coverage is cancelled, the resident must re-apply all over again should they return to Canada ; this means that there is waiting period applicable again (3 months).
Conclusions:
- Responses of this thread have been misleading with an exagerated tone regarding the consequences; in my specific case, it created distress and worries. It is good to plan for the worst, but creating fears and worries in people is such a shame.
- Not only people should not abuse of the system, they should act in good faith and protect it. On the other hand, personal circumstances vary but there is a tendency nowadays to put all the people "in the same basket" (the basket of the "abusers"). Shame.
- This post is in no way an incentive for people to play around rules, finding loop holes etc. To my opinion, the health coverage system is designed for people that are really settling in Canada; if you deviate from this line (to a limited extent), it is not yet a high crime and this why people must act with a good citizenship spirit, be of good faith and be REASONABLE. That is my disclaimer.
This year I will have stayed ~5 months in the province. So I will have my coverage cancelled and I find this to be fair enough. There are no other dramatic consequences whatsoever. I accept the fact, that upon returning to Canada, I will have to re-apply again (going through a waiting period).
The original post was simply to inquire what should I do so things go smoothly for me, and the thread derailed into accusations of abuse. Some advisors are immigrants themselves. Maybe you know the expression now: "to be more royalist then the king".
Not sure what officer you're speaking to but yes you can be asked to pay back the cost of medical care if you don't meet the residency obligation. Will it happen, who knows. The system often gets audited years after. The system is in place to prevent people from arriving in Canada for medical care and then leaving. It's no a criminal charge but the province could try and collect the money by other means. The healthcare system works because taxpayers pay into the system. If you are not paying into the system because you are not staying over 6 months why would you be entitled to the care. Think it is probably unlikely fo the province to go after you but I think the provinces should be auditing their files more consistently because there is abuse at all levels of the system doctors included. As @vensak previously mentioned: the bigger the bill, the more likely to try and get reimbursement. For a couple thousand it is probably not worth it. If someone arrived in BC and received 100K+ heart surgery and left Canada after having only stayed in Canada for 4 months. How would that be fair to the Canadian taxpayer?
Last edited:
"Not sure what officer you're speaking"
I've been speaking to a Level 3 officer, area of MSP enrollment and elligibility, they responded "NO" to my question on back payments.
As far as I know the MSP officer did not condition their answer to the magnitude of my bills. If there is something else to the picture it is THEIR problem not mine.
As a side note, I come from the engineering world, and I know that if at some reasonable point, I do NOT rely on the input from others, there is going to be a crisis of trust all around and none can move forward. That is why I am considering the MSP Officer to be competent and the case is closed.
Mentions and suggestions regarding audits and alike pertain to the register of opinions.
I've been speaking to a Level 3 officer, area of MSP enrollment and elligibility, they responded "NO" to my question on back payments.
As far as I know the MSP officer did not condition their answer to the magnitude of my bills. If there is something else to the picture it is THEIR problem not mine.
As a side note, I come from the engineering world, and I know that if at some reasonable point, I do NOT rely on the input from others, there is going to be a crisis of trust all around and none can move forward. That is why I am considering the MSP Officer to be competent and the case is closed.
Mentions and suggestions regarding audits and alike pertain to the register of opinions.
You are seriously mistaken.
1. Lack of knowledge of the law - if that law is generally published and accessible (which it is) is no excuse. So it can be YOUR problem not just THEIR
2. The magnitude of bill is actually what will increase statistical possibility that they will go after you (the bigger the potential loss, the more is it worth to invest time to retrieve the money). That is a law of economy and is valid all over the world.
3. Your problem is, that you did not have right for the coverage in the first place and not that you lost your right. And yes if they really want to they can use that against you.
4. The answer you got is for this case (which would be true if you let say stayed +6 months in BC last year but then left after 4 months this year:
Cancellation of beneficiary enrolment
7.4 (1)The commission may cancel the enrolment of a beneficiary as follows:
(b)if the commission believes the beneficiary has ceased to be a resident, effective on the date the commission determines to have been the date that the beneficiary ceased to be a resident;
However they can also use this one on you:
(c)if the commission determines that the beneficiary was not eligible for enrolment, effective on the date of enrolment as a beneficiary.
A person must be a B.C. resident to qualify for medical coverage under MSP. A resident is a person who meets all of the following conditions:
- must be a citizen of Canada or be lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;
- must make his or her home in B.C.; and
- must be physically present in B.C. at least six months in a calendar year, or a shorter prescribed period.*
So they do have option to go after you. And just because one officer was not aware of this part of the law that does not make the law invalid.
So you will be safe after 5-10 years or more (depends how long is the period of non-claim-ability of these rights).
Good luck.
First off, I stick to what the MSP officer said.
"And just because one officer was not aware of this part of the law that does not make the law invalid."
I am litteraly stunned that the competence (and by induction the professionalism) of a qualified officer is questionned in this way, really by making bold assumption.
What you read publicly and interpretate cannot prevail over the input of a qualified MSP officer who has checked my case based on the complete details on file, their internal policies etc. I say you are trying to win the argument not providing any uselful help at this point.
I regret that I inquired input on this matter because it just interfered with my decisions by aggravating a case that, at first place, based on my conditiions did not constitute such a big deal.
"And just because one officer was not aware of this part of the law that does not make the law invalid."
I am litteraly stunned that the competence (and by induction the professionalism) of a qualified officer is questionned in this way, really by making bold assumption.
What you read publicly and interpretate cannot prevail over the input of a qualified MSP officer who has checked my case based on the complete details on file, their internal policies etc. I say you are trying to win the argument not providing any uselful help at this point.
I regret that I inquired input on this matter because it just interfered with my decisions by aggravating a case that, at first place, based on my conditiions did not constitute such a big deal.
Observation:
I do not know the qualifying requirements for BC health care.
BUT I can offer some clarification about benefit-fraud cases in general. The patron's status at the time the benefits were used/obtained can make a huge, huge difference.
If at the time the benefits were actually used (such as at the time the PR was a patient getting very expensive care), the PR had the status of a covered-person, even if actual qualification for the benefits is subject to be rescinded (such as for SUBSEQUENT failure to meet a residency requirement), there is NO fraud involved in actually using the benefits . . . even if the PR's coverage is ultimately rescinded retroactively.
Unless, of course, there was actual fraud.
Thus, for example, a PR who comes to a province and meets the initial waiting period requirements and then applies for and obtains coverage representing he or she has established residence in the province and will be present in the province sufficient to meet an annual or first-year presence requirement, does NOT commit fraud if subsequently the PR moves out of the province before meeting the annual or first-year presence requirement.
If the PR made material misrepresentations of fact in applying for and obtaining the coverage, sure that would be fraud. If, for example, the PR did not actually intend to stay, already had a job or established residence elsewhere, and was obtaining coverage specifically with the intent to have certain expensive medical procedures paid for by the program, knowing he or she planned to soon leave the province, sure that would be fraud. And if discovered by the province, there is a substantial risk the province would at least seek recovery of the expenses paid and some risk of criminal prosecution. But again, that would be if there was overt fraud for which there is some direct evidence of the fraud.
Again, I am not familiar with the BC plan in particular. Such plans vary some in the terms which would allow the province to recoup expenses for rescinded coverage in non-fraud cases. But, yes indeed, some of these plans (which may or may not include BC's plan; I do not know) have some fairly strong provisions which will enable the province to pursue repayment of expenses paid on behalf of an individual who fails to meet an annual or first-year presence requirement, no need to show fraud.
That said, most indications suggest that provincial authorities tend to NOT pursue such payment recovery UNLESS actual fraud is suspected, in which cases they pursue recovery based on these provisions in lieu of pursuing a far more difficult to prove fraud case.
Appearance of fraud can tip the scales, to be sure. But the mere fact of having used the benefits and subsequently, due to this or that circumstance, leaving the province before meeting an annual or first-year presence requirement, is NOT likely targeted much.
In contrast, if the PR moved out of the province and then, after it is relatively clear the PR does not meet a presence or residency requirement, the PR then comes into the province to receive expensive care under the plan, that tends to be the sort of case many provinces seem quite likely to pursue . . . and to pursue them criminally if evidence of intentional fraud is available. (Recognizing that more than a little fraud goes undetected, escaping enforcement; but this tends to go in favour of the other-guy while, for many, the hammer-of-the-law comes down hard.)
I do not know the qualifying requirements for BC health care.
BUT I can offer some clarification about benefit-fraud cases in general. The patron's status at the time the benefits were used/obtained can make a huge, huge difference.
If at the time the benefits were actually used (such as at the time the PR was a patient getting very expensive care), the PR had the status of a covered-person, even if actual qualification for the benefits is subject to be rescinded (such as for SUBSEQUENT failure to meet a residency requirement), there is NO fraud involved in actually using the benefits . . . even if the PR's coverage is ultimately rescinded retroactively.
Unless, of course, there was actual fraud.
Thus, for example, a PR who comes to a province and meets the initial waiting period requirements and then applies for and obtains coverage representing he or she has established residence in the province and will be present in the province sufficient to meet an annual or first-year presence requirement, does NOT commit fraud if subsequently the PR moves out of the province before meeting the annual or first-year presence requirement.
If the PR made material misrepresentations of fact in applying for and obtaining the coverage, sure that would be fraud. If, for example, the PR did not actually intend to stay, already had a job or established residence elsewhere, and was obtaining coverage specifically with the intent to have certain expensive medical procedures paid for by the program, knowing he or she planned to soon leave the province, sure that would be fraud. And if discovered by the province, there is a substantial risk the province would at least seek recovery of the expenses paid and some risk of criminal prosecution. But again, that would be if there was overt fraud for which there is some direct evidence of the fraud.
Again, I am not familiar with the BC plan in particular. Such plans vary some in the terms which would allow the province to recoup expenses for rescinded coverage in non-fraud cases. But, yes indeed, some of these plans (which may or may not include BC's plan; I do not know) have some fairly strong provisions which will enable the province to pursue repayment of expenses paid on behalf of an individual who fails to meet an annual or first-year presence requirement, no need to show fraud.
That said, most indications suggest that provincial authorities tend to NOT pursue such payment recovery UNLESS actual fraud is suspected, in which cases they pursue recovery based on these provisions in lieu of pursuing a far more difficult to prove fraud case.
Appearance of fraud can tip the scales, to be sure. But the mere fact of having used the benefits and subsequently, due to this or that circumstance, leaving the province before meeting an annual or first-year presence requirement, is NOT likely targeted much.
In contrast, if the PR moved out of the province and then, after it is relatively clear the PR does not meet a presence or residency requirement, the PR then comes into the province to receive expensive care under the plan, that tends to be the sort of case many provinces seem quite likely to pursue . . . and to pursue them criminally if evidence of intentional fraud is available. (Recognizing that more than a little fraud goes undetected, escaping enforcement; but this tends to go in favour of the other-guy while, for many, the hammer-of-the-law comes down hard.)
I agree suggesting "not to travel" is at the very least a bit excessive . . . well, actually it is over-the-top excessive. PRs are fully entitled and expected to travel. (Indeed, little understood observation: PRs applying for new PR cards or for citizenship reporting NO travel abroad are more at risk for suspicion and elevated scrutiny than most who report fairly regular travel abroad. NO TRAVEL abroad is NOT the norm, with some more or less obvious exceptions.)
BUT many IAD panels and even some Federal Court Justices have explicitly emphasized that the purpose of PR is so the individual can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. There is no doubt this is the purpose.
PRs who do not settle and proceed to live PERMANENTLY in Canada long term are rather likely, sooner or later, to encounter conflicting priorities in trying to keep PR status while meeting obligations they have outside Canada.
These IAD panels and Federal Court Justices, along with other IAD panels and Federal Court Justices, have otherwise clearly stated that the PR Residency Obligation is "very generous" AND it is intended to accommodate real life contingencies which sometimes compel individuals to return to their home or other country for extended periods of time due to exigent circumstances, like to provide necessary personal care for an ill parent or to attend to pressing necessities. This is often overlooked by many who raise the illness of a parent as a reason for not meeting the RO. The IAD and Federal Court, however, have clearly stated that the generous RO is intended to give PRs enough freedom to spend time abroad to deal with personally compelling exigencies, such as to spend time with an ill parent for example.
In contrast, in today's world many PRs have lots of reasons to live border-straddling lifestyles, while many others want to hang onto status in Canada notwithstanding no imminent plans to settle and live in Canada permanently. Make no mistake, the 2/5 rule is NOT intended to facilitate this. It does, incidentally, as an unintended consequence, but anyone who is relying on the 2/5 rule in this manner should be aware of the RISKS . . . long delays in processing new PRC applications, potential PoE examinations, potentially negative visa office decisions in response to PR Travel Document applications, and rather little leniency if and when they fall short of 730 days within the preceding five years.
SHORT RESPONSE: Canadian PRs should plan to settle and live permanently in Canada if they intend to keep PR status.
so? you asked for an advise or what? get to the point, to live outside with the benefits?
Perhaps you overlooked the "Short Response" in bold:
But to be clear, traveling abroad is NOT a problem. It is actually the norm. Not that confusing. No advanced degrees in social engineering necessary. And, technically, so long as the PR meets the 2/5 rule, the PR can keep status despite mostly living abroad. (The latter, however, will eventually run into RISKS and more difficult, lengthy processing to obtain a new PRC or a PR TD if needed.)
Regarding benefits: while many benefits require beneficiaries to have legal immigration status, which may be PR status, PR status itself does NOT make an individual eligible, let alone entitled, to government provided benefits. Otherwise, most benefits are either governed or administered provincially, or both, subject to the provisions adopted by the respective provincial governments. Some of these are contingent on either residency or presence IN THE PROVINCE, or in some instances both residency and presence. For example, Ontario health care benefits, OHIP, require qualified recipients to BOTH be RESIDENT in Ontario and to be PRESENT in Ontario (presence in Canada not enough) for a specified number of days in the year. These are provincial requirements.