Creampop said:
Wrong! having a disability has nothing to do with you sponsoring your spouse.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp
Yes, I noticed that part too, about disability payments "usually" being acceptable, which is why I thought it was best to be on the safe side and check.
But I've realized that I misstated the conditions, so you were correct to bring this up.
The regulations say this:
“social assistance” means any benefit in the form of money, goods or services provided to or on behalf of a person by a province under a program of social assistance, including a program of social assistance designated by a province to provide for basic requirements including food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and health care not provided by public health care, including dental care and eye care.
In practice, there is a specific list for each province.
It's true that the regulations, in section 133(k), say that the bar to sponsorship is if the sponsor is "in receipt of social assistance for a reason other than disability."
So what this means is that receiving social assistance for a disability doesn't automatically prevent a person from being a sponsor.
However, a person who is receiving something categorized as "social assistance", even by reason of disability, can have problems bringing a spouse to Canada. It is not based on a bar to sponsorship but on whether "adequate arrangements" have been made financially for the couple. This depends on the foreign spouse's earning ability. Namely, Section 39 of the IRPA reads:
39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support,
other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.
So the social assistance of the sponsor isn't allowed to contribute to the calculation of whether the foreign spouse will be supported.
Here is an example of a case where a disabled sponsor had problems for this reason (although their appeal was allowed because there were humanitarian and compassionate considerations that may or may not be present in other cases): http://canlii.ca/t/fq90f
Some excerpts from the judgment:
[17] While IRPA contemplates that a mentally disabled person can sponsor their spouse to Canada, I am mindful of section 39 of IRPA.
[18]
I find that social assistance includes disability benefits. Moreover, rule 52(1) of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Rules require notice of a constitutional question; this was not provided. Therefore, I find that the visa officer's decision is not discriminatory and he was entitled to consider the appellant's receipt of social assistance, including disability benefits and her unemployment, to reach the finding that the applicant is inadmissible under section 39 of IRPA.
[31] The evidence reveals that the applicant would be coming into an existing situation which finds the appellant with a total income solely based on disability benefits. This is a strong indicator that some form of additional financial support will be necessary, which, inferentially, leads to social assistance as its logical source. Are there any factors that would suggest that the applicant can come to Canada and be self-supporting by means other than welfare? Unfortunately, the panel must conclude that the applicant, even if he finds employment, is unlikely to command a high wage for the foreseeable future based on several negative factors that would likely impede the applicant's establishment in Canada, and in particular his integration into the labour force.
[33] In combination with the appellant's history of reliance on social assistance, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant will be unable to support himself. Furthermore, adequate arrangements for his care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have not been made. Therefore, the panel finds that the applicant is a person described by section 39 of IRPA and that he is inadmissible to Canada for financial reasons.
Now, I'm not saying this to discourage Julesocean. I'm saying that he needs to be mindful of this aspect if it is relevant in his case. Basically, there could potentially be a question of how much his wife can earn, apart from the disability he receives.
