Reactivate 'dormant' SIN
- Thread starter princessofdiamonds
- Start date
I can provide an update as recently had to do this (my spouse had been out of country for many years - as barely had lived in Canada also had no record of what the SIN was).
You have to call service canada and inquire. Just explain that it seems to be dormant and/or need to check. If they confirm it is dormant, they will send - by mail - the specific dormant SIN questionnaire (and should also send the forms or at least names of forms needed but didn't in our case - that was easy to figure out).
Key point: service canada said that they will not / cannot provide the dormant SIN questionnaire online or by email or any other way - only by post. I don't know of any other way to get it sent to you than by calling them or applying in some way that they send it to you.
No problem, they did send it to us and we had it in a week. We did the necessary and submitted - in our case online IIRC - and we got the SIN number / confirmation by mail in a couple weeks.
You have to call service canada and inquire. Just explain that it seems to be dormant and/or need to check. If they confirm it is dormant, they will send - by mail - the specific dormant SIN questionnaire (and should also send the forms or at least names of forms needed but didn't in our case - that was easy to figure out).
Key point: service canada said that they will not / cannot provide the dormant SIN questionnaire online or by email or any other way - only by post. I don't know of any other way to get it sent to you than by calling them or applying in some way that they send it to you.
No problem, they did send it to us and we had it in a week. We did the necessary and submitted - in our case online IIRC - and we got the SIN number / confirmation by mail in a couple weeks.
Was it dormant even if your spouse has been filing taxes as a tax resident if you have been living in Canada.
Neither of us were resident. Long story, but my spouse has basically never been resident (landed before knowing me and left).
Guy, are you Canadian Citizens or Permanent Residents ? I assume everyone on this thread is Permanent Resident, as Citizens would be entitled to all privileges regardless of time they spent out of Canada?
Yes, you're right. Citizens can easily reactive their SINs if they become dormant.
PRs need to show a valid PR card (or have very recently landed for the first time). This can become a challenge for some if they have been outside of Canada for more than 3 years and their PR card has expired (and they can't apply for a new PR card due to not meeting RO). We had someone post the other day who just entered Canada and is in this situation. They are in a bind because they will need to live in Canada for 2 years to meet the residency requirement and renew their PR card, but at the same time they can't reactive their SIN which means they can't work legally. Getting health care coverage and enrolling kids in school is often also a problem without a valid PR card.
Interesting. I knew well about PR obligation and authority of border officers to report/initiate removal proceedings against anyone who stayed out 3 years or more, but this (re: SIN) is something new. I assume the law was passed which allows such practices? Because in the past (by law) your landing papers (which never expire) were a proof of your PR status and could be used to get SIN. And, once you had SIN, your SIN and landing papers were sufficient to land a job. If there is no law to support the enforcement of immigration laws by agency issuing SIN, then I believe the PRs can hire attorneys and sue whatever government entity is preventing them from working in Canada as PRs. The individual with expired landing paper , who legally crossed border and was not reported by border officers, is still a permanent resident and as such is entitled/has a right to work. If the law has been passed to sabotage (and punish) PR within Canada for having stayed out of Canada too long, then such law is implausible and grossly wrong (though there could be no legal remedy for it). But if it's happening due to vigilantism of bureaucrats who don't have authority to enforce PR obligation laws within Canada, then affected residents should hire an attorney and sue whatever government agency is doing this to them.
Not aware that there is a law that requires proof of a PR card and having met the RO so you may be able to sue to activate your SIN# but I imagine there will be a good chance that IRCC may be notified that you have entered Canada and are not in compliance with your RO. That could then lead to you losing your PR status. Canada’s ROs are very lenient. Canada has immigration quotas and plans based on new PRs entering within 3 years and hopefully establishing themselves and their young families in Canada. If Canada allowed people to obtain PR, land and then only return when they were much older that would defeat the purpose of most of the economic immigration programs.
It's easy to make the comment that those who want to appeal this are 'self-entitled', but:
-the law's the law; I have no opinion or knowledge of the validity of the legal argument - but even someone here out-of-compliance has access to the courts, and if the relevant authorities are doing something they're not allowed to, 'more power to them' I say. (Government can change the law if it wants, of course, to grant such authority)
-even worse, it's quite possibly a very bad policy anyway - what possible benefit would government/society get from having someone in the country legally (non-compliance is not illegal) who technically does have the right to work legally without the ability to do so (because their SIN number blocked)? It's just forcing people to work illegally (or worse).
-it's more complex with other benefits like health care and schooling - nothing's perfect, govt should deal with it.
And sure - if you want to argue that they should not be let into the country at all when out of compliance, argue for that, push your MP/ministers to change the law; but in the meantime, this particular policy about SINs is stupid and harmful and contradictory.
(*caveat I'm not an expert on this particular policy or enforcement, but if there's a reason to do it this way, I cannot see it.)
I don’t see it as stupid. It provides a significant disincentive for those deciding whether they should return to Canada after a long absence. I think many are willing to take a chance at entering Canada via the US because they know they will be able to work. If they knew they wouldn’t be able to work, have access to healthcare, etc. they may decide to not return to Canada.
If it's government policy to create a 'strong disincentive' to do something, govt should have the cojones to outright forbid it - and enforce it. It is not explicit government policy.
Allowing PRs who are out of compliance to exercise their legal ability to enter the country and then effectively prevent them from working and paying taxes is utterly contradictory. Preventing them from doing so and therefore creating the incentive - indeed the necessity, for many - to work illegally (and therefore further encouraging a shadow economy) ...
... is close to the height of idiocy.
Government should not try to 'discourage' things by the back door, but outright make a policy explicit.
I'm sure there's a more idiotic, cowardly and contradictory policy out there, but none come to mind.
(Assuming this is a policy, and not just some inadvertent combination of different decisions that are having unexpected consequences - which I'd guess is more likely)
Caution: While this quite old thread was revived a couple weeks ago, with some updated information, this most recent activity was initiated by . . . I have already expressed what I apprehend in response to their first post (apparently first post) in this forum. Perhaps a bit of paranoia has crept up on me in my old age, or I am afflicted by arthritic pain corrupting the neural-synapses evoking cranky old man syndrome, or . . .
. . . it's possible there is good cause to be suspicious of a new participant here so quick to make gratuitous insinuations that Canadian bureaucrats are engaging in vigilantism and advocating lawsuits against government officials and otherwise making assertions about what the law is in Canada that are at best misleading, by someone who claims to have zero interest in living in Canada and no foreseeable interest in even visiting Canada . . . that and it's likely my tolerance has grown thin.
That said, the rule or practice of requiring a PR to present a valid status card (a Permanent Resident card) to reactivate a dormant SIN is, as @armoured addressed, at the least questionable, at least to the extent that it interferes with a PR's ability to obtain employment or engage in a business in Canada.
There is a big difference between access to government provided health care (or other benefits), for example, and access to employment. A huge difference. A Charter Right difference. Among other differences.
But to be clear, this is not about what "the law" requires. This is about administrative rules and practices. That is a subject which can get real complicated real fast. In any event, no change in the law is necessary for a government body to implement or change rules or practices. IRCC does it every month, or almost. The rules and practices must be within the scope of the respective agency's powers, as prescribed by enabling legislation and the governing statutes and regulations, and meet a reasonableness standard. What is "reasonable" is a far, far broader standard than many apprehend, and in this context typically involves some complex balancing of competing interests . . . like the government's need to identify, interdict, and minimize fraud . . . versus the impact of a measure or rule or practice on an individual's Charter Rights, like the Charter Right of Canadians (both citizens and PRs) "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."
I will not venture to sort this one out. The practice of requiring a valid PR card for reactivation of the SIN# has been around for at least five years (as far as I have seen in forum discussions about it). There is no doubt it is NOT about enforcing the RO or about bureaucrats engaging in vigilantism, but rather is a measure implemented to combat fraud. The question is whether that purpose justifies its impact on a Canadian's access to employment. Since the latter is a Charter Right (which, for example, health care is NOT), my best understanding is that the government has the burden of showing its need and the absence of a less Constitutionally intrusive means.
For reference: the right to work in Canada, technically the right "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province," is a Charter Right specifically granted to all Canadians, that is to both Canadian citizens and PRs of Canada, and is found in Section 6(2)(b), see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html
By the way, contrary to some comments here, so far as I have seen there is no risk that IRCC will proceed to conduct a formal RO compliance examination based on notice or information a PR in Canada is not in compliance with the RO, even if the information is a referral from another government body. Moreover, it is not as if either the CRA or Service Canada would know the PR is not in compliance with the RO. Just because a PR does not possess a PR card does not mean the PR is in breach of the RO. And these days even a PR fully in compliance with the RO is not likely to get a valid PR card issued and delivered for at least four months. (Consider, for example, a PR who has been abroad accompanying a citizen spouse long enough his PR card has expired and his SIN has been deactivated, who is not in breach of the RO.)
Thus, I see no reason to fear that pursuing legal recourse, which would probably begin with a formal demand (and one from a lawyer tends to work far more often, and better, than pro se; which is no guarantee, however, it will work), risks a referral to IRCC or loss of PR status.
For those in need, those actually affected by this, the best course of action is likely a consultation with a qualified lawyer. Or maybe an accountant could help (they tend to be more engaged in the administrative labyrinths where SIN#s are important).
. . . it's possible there is good cause to be suspicious of a new participant here so quick to make gratuitous insinuations that Canadian bureaucrats are engaging in vigilantism and advocating lawsuits against government officials and otherwise making assertions about what the law is in Canada that are at best misleading, by someone who claims to have zero interest in living in Canada and no foreseeable interest in even visiting Canada . . . that and it's likely my tolerance has grown thin.
That said, the rule or practice of requiring a PR to present a valid status card (a Permanent Resident card) to reactivate a dormant SIN is, as @armoured addressed, at the least questionable, at least to the extent that it interferes with a PR's ability to obtain employment or engage in a business in Canada.
There is a big difference between access to government provided health care (or other benefits), for example, and access to employment. A huge difference. A Charter Right difference. Among other differences.
But to be clear, this is not about what "the law" requires. This is about administrative rules and practices. That is a subject which can get real complicated real fast. In any event, no change in the law is necessary for a government body to implement or change rules or practices. IRCC does it every month, or almost. The rules and practices must be within the scope of the respective agency's powers, as prescribed by enabling legislation and the governing statutes and regulations, and meet a reasonableness standard. What is "reasonable" is a far, far broader standard than many apprehend, and in this context typically involves some complex balancing of competing interests . . . like the government's need to identify, interdict, and minimize fraud . . . versus the impact of a measure or rule or practice on an individual's Charter Rights, like the Charter Right of Canadians (both citizens and PRs) "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province."
I will not venture to sort this one out. The practice of requiring a valid PR card for reactivation of the SIN# has been around for at least five years (as far as I have seen in forum discussions about it). There is no doubt it is NOT about enforcing the RO or about bureaucrats engaging in vigilantism, but rather is a measure implemented to combat fraud. The question is whether that purpose justifies its impact on a Canadian's access to employment. Since the latter is a Charter Right (which, for example, health care is NOT), my best understanding is that the government has the burden of showing its need and the absence of a less Constitutionally intrusive means.
For reference: the right to work in Canada, technically the right "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province," is a Charter Right specifically granted to all Canadians, that is to both Canadian citizens and PRs of Canada, and is found in Section 6(2)(b), see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html
By the way, contrary to some comments here, so far as I have seen there is no risk that IRCC will proceed to conduct a formal RO compliance examination based on notice or information a PR in Canada is not in compliance with the RO, even if the information is a referral from another government body. Moreover, it is not as if either the CRA or Service Canada would know the PR is not in compliance with the RO. Just because a PR does not possess a PR card does not mean the PR is in breach of the RO. And these days even a PR fully in compliance with the RO is not likely to get a valid PR card issued and delivered for at least four months. (Consider, for example, a PR who has been abroad accompanying a citizen spouse long enough his PR card has expired and his SIN has been deactivated, who is not in breach of the RO.)
Thus, I see no reason to fear that pursuing legal recourse, which would probably begin with a formal demand (and one from a lawyer tends to work far more often, and better, than pro se; which is no guarantee, however, it will work), risks a referral to IRCC or loss of PR status.
For those in need, those actually affected by this, the best course of action is likely a consultation with a qualified lawyer. Or maybe an accountant could help (they tend to be more engaged in the administrative labyrinths where SIN#s are important).
A spouse accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad would be compliant with their RO which you can’t compare to a PR who has been out of Canada for 10 years. A PR accompanying a Canadian citizen could have travelled to Canada on vacation to submit their PR card renewal or apply once they arrive. Processing time should be rather fast although yes it will be an inconvenience. If you haven’t met your RO and you’re not reported you are looking at 2.5-3 years until you will get your PR card. If people don’t meet their RO there is also the option of applying for PRTD based on H&C from your home country which will allow you to renew your PR card on arrival if your PRTD is approved. If CBSA reported anyone without clear H&C reasons or PRs who aren’t accompanying spouses who are citizens, this would prevent a large amount of people not meeting ROs from entering Canada. Also not talking about small breaches in ROs. There are some examples of PRs entering Canada without being in Canada for 30 years. In general there should be consistency across the board.
Reminder: the subject here is dormant/deactivated SIN#s not RO compliance. There is no indication that CRA or Service Canada screens PRs for RO compliance. Or that either of these are engaged in PR RO enforcement.
Whether it is a returning PR who has been accompanying a citizen spouse abroad, or a PR granted a PR Travel Document for H&C reasons, or a PR who has lost their PR card and re-entered via the U.S., there is no shortage of examples where PRs who have been abroad, are not inadmissible, and who, for one reason or another have not used their SIN# for a period of time resulting in it being deactivated, who will face (currently) a minimum four to six months to obtain a PR card. Currently, apparently, Service Canada refuses to reactivate their SIN# during that time, which is a substantial imposition not a mere inconvenience.
There is no hint that this rule or practice has anything to do with RO enforcement. The prevention of fraud explanation, as given, makes total sense. The fraud being targeted, interdicted, is not immigration fraud but identity and financial fraud related to the illegal use of SIN#s. A very big problem.
Appropriate measures to enforce RO compliance is a different subject. A different problem.
Not every coincidence is causal. Indeed, most aren't.
Obviously, the rule or practice requiring a valid PR card to reactivate the SIN# has an incidental impact on certain PRs, some prohibited for maybe just four to six months or so while their application for a new PR card is routinely (they hope) processed (or much longer if for some reason it is not routinely processed), or as you note two to three or more years for those who are not in RO compliance and will wait to apply for a new PR card. But this is clearly incidental. Not the object. Not the intended consequence.
Contrary to what more than a few in this forum are all too eager to accuse, no, the Canadian government does not ordinarily engage in ruse to effect penalties or otherwise punish immigrants; there is no evidence that the dormant SIN# policy is a subterfuge to make it more difficult for PRs failing to comply with the RO.
Legislators and government administrators often wrestle with the unintended consequences of law, regulations, and rules. The question here is whether this impact, a negative impact on the capacity of a Canadian (these certain PRs affected) "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood " anywhere in Canada, a Charter protected right, meets the balancing tests for need versus detriment to constitutionally protected rights. It is easy to recognize there is a question here. Not so easy to engage in the balancing interests analysis. As I noted, I am not about to try sorting this one out, other than to recognize that given the impact on a Charter Right, there is indeed a question.
In regards to the tangent about RO enforcement policies, there are clearly many, many ways the government could elevate scrutiny and enforcement measures. My impression is that they have on multiple fronts, in multiple ways, and it will take some time before some of these are reflected in personal, anecdotal reporting. Yet, there continue to be other indications that the system will continue to be flexible in ways that favour the PR, considerably so. Still not flexible enough for some, which many might think belong to the want-their-cake-and-to-eat-it-too group. And still way too flexible for others. But that is a subject for another thread (and populating perhaps a hundred other threads already).