Reactivate 'dormant' SIN

[frequent flyer]

I am sorry to inform those forum members who for whatever reason cheer when they hear about any government policy that make life harder for some PR's .. and keep reminding everyone the RO is so lenient .. even if the topic is not relevant .. that this policy was not intended to target or punish PR's who did not meet their RO.

The policy of "Flagging SIN's Dormant" was developed in response to escalating identity theft incidents and had nothing to do with PR's RO.

To get away from the guessing game .. I am quoting here some excerpt from a House of Commons Committee meeting from 2014:
"To address these issues, important initiatives were implemented with regard to the administration of the SIN and the SIR which had positive consequences on government efforts against identity theft and fraud. We implemented the dormant flag, introduced an expiry date for social insurance numbers issued to temporary foreign workers, and developed a proof-of-identity internal intranet reference website."

Here is the page link:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/ETHI/meeting-16/evidence

 

[canuck78]

I am sorry to inform those forum members who for whatever reason cheer when they hear about any government policy that make life harder for some PR's .. and keep reminding everyone the RO is so lenient .. even if the topic is not relevant .. that this policy was not intended to target or punish PR's who did not meet their RO.

The policy of "Flagging SIN's Dormant" was developed in response to escalating identity theft incidents and had nothing to do with PR's RO.

To get away from the guessing game .. I am quoting here some excerpt from a House of Commons Committee meeting from 2014:
"To address these issues, important initiatives were implemented with regard to the administration of the SIN and the SIR which had positive consequences on government efforts against identity theft and fraud. We implemented the dormant flag, introduced an expiry date for social insurance numbers issued to temporary foreign workers, and developed a proof-of-identity internal intranet reference website."

Here is the page link:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/ETHI/meeting-16/evidence

Yes the policy is to protect from fraud. Never said that it was primarily create issues for returning PRs who haven’t met their ROs. I see many PRs who haven’t met their ROs expect to easily return to Canada through the US and establish their lives in Canada. To be fair that was often the case for many years. The expectation that a PR can return when they desire is what I take issue with. There are ROs that most PRs follow and ways to apply for PRTD based H&C if there are exceptional circumstances. If someone decides to continue living in another country for studies or professional reasons and not meet the RO there are consequences.

 

[dpenabill]

Yes the policy is to protect from fraud. Never said that it was primarily create issues for returning PRs who haven’t met their ROs. I see many PRs who haven’t met their ROs expect to easily return to Canada through the US and establish their lives in Canada. To be fair that was often the case for many years. The expectation that a PR can return when they desire is what I take issue with. There are ROs that most PRs follow and ways to apply for PRTD based H&C if there are exceptional circumstances. If someone decides to continue living in another country for studies or professional reasons and not meet the RO there are consequences.

But the point is that RO enforcement is not only off-topic in this thread, and a significant distraction, there are at least a hundred other topics where RO enforcement is addressed, frequently, at-length, in-depth, and with no shortage of moral judgments insinuating shame even though this last is typically off-topic in those discussions as well. I recognize that many here mix how they think things should work with comments about how they do work, but no matter how strongly a person feels about how things should work, that discussion tends to be confusing and a distraction when forum participants are asking questions about how things actually work. The latter is often difficult enough, confusing enough, to sort out. Without unnecessary distractions. And figuring out how things actually work, as best we can, tends to be important.

Including a matter like this: who and when might a Canadian have their SIN# deactivated and need to apply for it to be reactivated. This affects the fundamental right of Canadians to work. Helps to colour inside the lines to get a clear picture of things.

 

[jakklondon]

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.

In USA this would be impossible. If immigrants were held hostage to DHS , then none would complain to State or Federal courts of any wrongdoings, out of fear that they would be reported to DHS. As a matter of fact, in order to protect and defend immigrants from unscrupulous charlatans ever willing to abuse and violate their rights, we have a system that prevents reporting of their immigration status to DHS (imm. authorities), when they bring civil or even criminal complaint against any person or entity who had wronged them. I would be surprised to learn that Canada handles such matters differently and holds a gun to the head of immigrant, keeping him in constant fear of being reported to IRCC, That would effectively mean that Canada has third world standards in treating its' immigrant population.

 

[jakklondon]

And, what is most appalling, a PR who came to Canada was admitted by a border official in charge of deciding whom to let him and whom to remove, such individual had already been given a pass and permission to enter and live in Canada as a PR, and as PR he is entitled to all the protections of the PR. How dare some bureaucrat in a separate agency (not vested authority to enforce immigration laws) cause undue hardship and prevent such immigrant from working and providing for his family, as he is entitled to while retaining his PR status? What are the legal grounds for such abhorrent practices?

 

[jakklondon]

P.S Sometimes I think I should travel to Canada for sole purpose of punishing impudent abusers of immigrant rights there, come and sue the hell out of the self-aggrandizing Grand Poobahs in guvmint services over there. And since I am American Citizen (not in need of staying in Canada permanently), what do I care about being reported to IRCC? But I can certainly generate bad publicity and show how the rights of ordinary PRs are violated there, which should provide very strong disincentive for continuation of such abhorrent practices in future. PR is a PR, they are entitled to work in Canada. If IRCC let them in it is none of SIN issuing agency's business to engage in vigilantism. If fraud is real concern, then investigate identity of the individual and have them prosecuted for stealing someone else's identity (check their landing papers, passport, available databases, what not). Why prevent PR from working? What is PR supposed to do who is not allowed to work? Work illegally? How such a thing is tolerated in Canada?

 

[armoured]

Having done some research on this - something that would need to be checked - a "dormant SIN" does not seem to mean that it has been deactivated, simply a flag preventing access to online services.

So for those for whom it's dormant: the SIN can be used for work. A PR is allowed to work and the SIN has not been rendered invalid. (Work out getting it reactivated later).

This (if correct) reduces the scope of the issue primarily to those who were never issued a SIN (likely because they were children and never had a need) and then left and returned.

And possibly those who were issued a SIN but do not know it for whatever reason and it has been classified as dormant.

Note, there seems to be contradictory information about whether service canada will actually require a current proof of PR status - I don't see solid confirmaton of this, and it may be possible to do so with PR-TD of the right type (the government's dormant SIN questionnaire doesn't specify this).

And if anyone actually does get stonewalled on this at service canada - yes, it might make sense to see a laweyr and discuss suing. Beyond my legal ken.

 

[dpenabill]

Having done some research on this - something that would need to be checked - a "dormant SIN" does not seem to mean that it has been deactivated, simply a flag preventing access to online services.

So for those for whom it's dormant: the SIN can be used for work. A PR is allowed to work and the SIN has not been rendered invalid. (Work out getting it reactivated later).

This (if correct) reduces the scope of the issue primarily to those who were never issued a SIN (likely because they were children and never had a need) and then left and returned.

And possibly those who were issued a SIN but do not know it for whatever reason and it has been classified as dormant.

Note, there seems to be contradictory information about whether service canada will actually require a current proof of PR status - I don't see solid confirmaton of this, and it may be possible to do so with PR-TD of the right type (the government's dormant SIN questionnaire doesn't specify this).

And if anyone actually does get stonewalled on this at service canada - yes, it might make sense to see a laweyr and discuss suing. Beyond my legal ken.

Appreciate these added observations.

I would qualify the very last comment, about seeing a lawyer, and emphasize that seeing a lawyer is not always (and in fact NOT usually) about considering a lawsuit.

It is likely that most lawyers never or rarely engage in litigation, rarely if ever "go to the courthouse." There are plenty of matters regarding which lawyers are consulted and retained, having to do with navigating a wide, wide range of activities and transactions in which specialized legal education, expertise, and experience (this part looms huge but is dependent on getting the education and acquiring the expertise) are relied on.

And some matters can be adequately addressed by other professionals.

So for anyone affected by this issue, difficulties related to using their existing SIN# . . . whether it is dormant, deactivated, flagged, for non-use or other reason, yeah, good idea to consult with a lawyer . . . or an accountant (a real, certified public accountant, not just a tax-preparer). There are good odds they will know how to navigate and resolve the issue, whatever that issue really is.

And then come here and share what is learned.

(Reminder: otherwise, beware the American-Troll or Russian-Troll, so hard to tell them apart these days, same malodor, such similar modus-operandi, blatantly obvious malintent.)

 

[armoured]

I would qualify the very last comment, about seeing a lawyer, and emphasize that seeing a lawyer is not always (and in fact NOT usually) about considering a lawsuit.
...
So for anyone affected by this issue, difficulties related to using their existing SIN# . . . whether it is dormant, deactivated, flagged, for non-use or other reason, yeah, good idea to consult with a lawyer . . . or an accountant (a real, certified public accountant, not just a tax-preparer). There are good odds they will know how to navigate and resolve the issue, whatever that issue really is.

Yes, a good point - "suing" per se is last resort, and reports here of issues are sporadic enough that it's jumping the gun to believe there is some massive campaign of rights-deprivation. Discuss with a lawyer first.

Your point about also consulting / speaking with an accountant or someone specialized in that area is also an excellent one.

For dormant SINs, the immediate question is does a dormant SIN prevent one from working? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. I warn - I don't have the professional experience to confirm this, just that the references I can find refer to the dormancy status as limiting access to certain information and benefits, not as a restriction on employment.

Perhaps worth recapping here: it seems that this dormant SIN policy was brought in to prevent identity fraud of various types; the critical and important ones here (from perspective of most Canadians) are fraudsters accessing unemployment or pension benefits. Those are reasonable goals and they do make sense.

It is, of course, possible that service Canada policies inadvertently make it hard or impossible for PRs (in or out of compliance, they are in Canada legally) to get, reactivate, or work using their valid SINs - and if so, that should be fixed.

(And if there is in any way an attempt to use these policies as a backdoor way of discouraging PRs from returning to Canada, I'm outright opposed as a stupid, wrong-headed policy that will have bad unintended consequences and possibly contradict other laws/rights and should be challenged. But facts needed before jumping to that conclusion - although if anyone suggests those goals by this means, I'll repeat - that'd be stupid.)