Most policies then cancelled the covid portion. You should be calling the policy issuer not the broker.
Show that you’re travelling to Canada for an essential reason
- Thread starter kylelowry
- Start date
Unless you have spoken to the policy issuer in the past few weeks I would not count on having covid coverage. Most policy issuers have a clause for cancelling in times like pandemics or people received emails saying that their covid coverage had been cancelled once covid had become an issue in Canada.
You’re right! I didn’t do any research before purchasing (even though I was attempting to use the policy covering COVID-19 as one of my strong points in the cover letter). And I didn’t do any post-purchase follow up research either. I like to just throw my money away. Would you like some? Do you doubt that I got a refund too? You’re the smartest member here, no one can come close. Does your ego feel better?
BTW, if you don’t doubt. I purchased the policy that same day as the TRV application, in late APRIL 2020.
Hi, is this health insurance all over Canada? Looking for one when we arrive there for a duration of 3 mos.
Thanks for the info. My TRV was approved last November 2019, was supposed to leave last March but it's May now so wondering how this is all going to play out.
The conversation keeps getting heated in this thread. CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE? We are allowed to have different opinions. There is nothing wrong if someone expresses their disagreement with regards to the new policy. It is a unprecedented situation that is affecting us all and we all react differently to it. For a family to reunite in Canada where they plan to live together is not trivial.
Yes, the policy I got would have been good for all over Canada and even US visits.
Last edited:
So, if my wife is coming to live with me, but we are planning on applying from within Canada! Wouldn't that be dual intent and wouldn't she be denied entry because of planning on applying to stay in Canada!
You have to call CBSA to get an idea. But the final decision is made by the officer on duty at POE.
Yes it is dual intent but according to the IRPA 22(1), as long as you do not stay illegally, you're fine. CBSA should abide by it too.
An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. (A22(1)
He asked about dual intent and I answered that part of the question in my other post above based on what the IRPA states. Your answer has nothing to do with dual intent as you're talking about other factors that may or may not affect entry. The CBSA doesn't redefine the Act but they have the last say as the foreign national cannot appeal their decision at the POE. The fact that someone is denied entry does not change the fact that a foreign national can become a temporary resident even though they have the intent to apply for permanent resident.
Chapter ENF 4 states: Subsection A22(2) states that the intention of a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the border services officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. A person’s desire to await the outcome of an application for permanent residence from within Canada may be legitimate and should not automatically result in the decision to refuse entry.
Not to speak for another poster but the language you've quoted shows the complexity that canuck78 was referring to: travel / entry to Canada is currently limited to "essential" travel. But the section you've quoted says "a person's desire .... may be legitimate."
I think an honest reading of this shows the ambiguity: the desire to enter can be legitimate but not essential. Will the CBSA officer see your desire to enter ('temporarily') as essential under dual intent? Or will some interpret this to mean that if it's 'just' a desire (however good the reasons might be), then it's not essential (almost by definition)?
So yes, dual intent may not be automatically grounds for denial of entry, and still (practically) entirely different in practice than pre-covid.