Regarding how the cut-off will apply:
-- applications dated before effective date?
-- or, only applications actually received as of day before effective date?
I may have been among those who, many months ago (probably last year), expressed a firm opinion that the determinative date would be the date the application was actually, physically received at CIC.
I am not at all certain this is the case any more.
The language of the statutory provisions refer to the date the application was made and the statutory definition for when an application is deemed "made" appears to depend on the date the complete application was signed.
Part of the reasoning for my earlier view was based on changes to provisions of immigration law and regulations, in response to a Federal Court decision which related the date a sponsorship application was "made" back to the date it was originally signed and submitted (pre-dating the condition of two years cohabitation for sponsored partners), in conjunction with how CIC processed applications when they increased the fees without advance notice in February 2014 (which apparently did result in dozens or hundreds of applications being returned for failure to pay the increased fees) and when there were some changes to what documents were required with the application, when the date that took effect came without advance notice and again many applications caught in transit were returned to applicants (I forget which change this was, may have been the requirement to include proof of language . . . in any event, it was a change for which, like these pending residency changes, there had been plenty of notice the change was coming but as to the actual date there was no advance notice).
That is, those prior events signalled that CIC processed the application based on the date it was received at CIC, not based on the date of signature.
But again, looking at the language of the statutory provisions, they refer to the date the application was made and the statutory definition for when an application is deemed "made" appears to depend on the date the complete application was signed.
It does no good to reason what would be the most logical way for this to be applied. The statutory language is controlling, not reasoning about how it should work.
I do not know. My sense is that it is likely to be based on the date the application was signed, but I do not know if CIC will look at posting dates to apply a cut-off based on the conjunction of the application being signed and actually shipped on the day before the revised provisions take effect or not.
By the way, regarding dating applications earlier than the date actually signed (back-dating). There is no prohibition against this. There is a policy regarding stale-dated applications, based on those dated . . . I think the policy is based on ninety days prior to the date received at CIC.
If the cut-off is based on the date application is signed, the applicant must nonetheless be qualified as of the day before the application is signed, so the capacity to send in an application a few days later than it is signed does not really change anything of much import . . .
. . . take for example if the effective date is June 1st (noting, sure, July 1st is more likely), and a PR met the eligibility requirements as of May 26th but in reliance on MUFC's opinion (no reason to anticipate a date earlier than July 1st) contemplates holding out to build a bit of a buffer before applying.
-- If this PR signed and shipped the application on May 27th, in time to arrive at CIC May 29th, with no buffer, the application should for sure (assuming it is complete) be processed under the current law (3/4 rule)
-- If this PR waited, to build a little buffer (which would be very reasonable to do), and then on June 1st discovers that the law took effect that day, then:
-- -- if the new law applies based on date application arrives at CIC, this PR will have to wait and apply under the 4/6 rule
-- -- if the new law applies based on date the application is signed, this PR could sign and date the application as of May 29th, say, which would give the PR a two-day buffer, and so long as it is sent to CIC as a complete application and arrives at CIC before CIC's stale-dated policy applies, the application should still be processed pursuant to the 3/4 rule
The latter would not enable someone who did not become eligible until July 1st to back-date the application. That is, if the latter applies, it could only be used by those applicants who are actually qualified before July 1st.
But again I do not know. I do not know either what the source is for those who are so adamantly sure the cut-off will be based on the date the application arrives.
Reminder regarding need for notice: Notice has already been given. The SCCA received Royal Assent June 19th, 2014, and was published in Part III of the Gazette in August 2014. That is official notice of these changes.
The question is whether or not CIC will ask the Governor in General to publish the Order in advance, giving some notice of the precise date the changes take effect, for practical reasons. There is no legal requirement for any further notice. Many such laws take effect with no further notice than that already given for this change in the law. I anticipate some notice, again for practical reasons but there is NO guarantee there will be much if any notice of the precise date.
