>>>>>>>MARCH 2020 AOR<<<<<<< Join here
- Thread starter legalfalcon
- Start date
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016
Emergencies Act different than ‘any other law of Canada’
With cases of COVID-19 continuing to rise, politicians and legal scholars alike have looked toward a never-before-used 1988 law, the Emergencies Act, to see if it offers any solutions.
As of Mar. 23, unnamed sources told the CBC that “some premiers were eager for a co-ordinated, national response while others were concerned about what invoking the act would mean for local decision making,” after Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland called the Emergencies Act a "measure of last resort.”
But Colleen Flood and Teresa Scassa, legal scholars at the University of Ottawa, argued in a separate CBC piece that provinces may be unable to handle the level of testing and establishment of emergency shelters on their own. Flood and Scassa also argued that the Emergencies Act would allow the government to “use the power to require, use or dispose of ‘property’ in order to access data held by telecommunications companies.”
Leah West, lecturer of International Affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, says she’s not sure that the federal act does allow for data collection the way some provincial laws do. The law would, however, help the government do something like coordinate private industry players in pumping out medical supplies, or manage cross-provincial food supply issues, says West.
West, along with Craig Forcese is the author of a forthcoming chapter of National Security Law, which notes that “In Canada, very few threats reach the magnitude of an emergency. National security law is, therefore, usually regular law, and not a special body of rules applicable only in extraordinary circumstances.”
The way the act defines an emergency is a key consideration in why the act has not been invoked since 1988, says West, as the law specifically focuses on situations that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Indeed, West says, some of the provincial emergency acts include much harsher fines than the national act.
“They can’t invoke it to tell us the same things the provinces have already told us,” she says.
The federal government also has laws like the Emergency Management Act, Public Safety Act, Quarantine Act, and the National Defence Act at its disposal, while the Emergencies Act has “the threshold for an emergency declaration, albeit in broad terms likely to attract only the most deferential of judicial review,” West and Forcese write.
The definition under the act that would best fit the COVID-19 pandemic is “a public welfare emergency,” which would be invoked by cabinet and comes with its own “basket” of powers, says West. Cabinet would also need to issue regulations to use those powers, often with timeframes attached. The process has a series of checks and balances in place — such as a requirement to consult provinces. The law itself also says that it should not be interpreted to allow “the detention, imprisonment or internment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability,” and that special temporary measures “would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency.” The act cannot be used purpose of terminating a strike or lock-out or imposing a settlement in a labour dispute.
Nonetheless, in a podcast, West, and Stephanie Carvin note that emergency law can be “dangerous” and “corrosive” to civil liberties, and the proper use of legislation must be necessary and proportional. As their book says, “democracies depend on a system of checks and balances that constrain the exercise of power. Yet, emergencies usually require the swift and resolute exercise of power. While law applicable in normal situations diffuses power, emergencies concentrate it.”
The Emergencies Act, if violated, does allow the imposition a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months (or both, on summary conviction), or a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years (or both, upon indictment.) It also allows for travel restrictions, evacuations and allows the government to demand use of property or distribution of goods.
“Invoking this, there is serious power to restrict our liberties that should only be used for a temporary mandate with a prescribed ending,” she says. “Because the powers under this act are such that the government can do things it could not otherwise do. You want to make this a tool of last resort.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/emergencies-act-different-than-any-other-law-of-canada/328104?utm_campaign=Editorial - Law Times&utm_content=123988428&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-301805746865949
With cases of COVID-19 continuing to rise, politicians and legal scholars alike have looked toward a never-before-used 1988 law, the Emergencies Act, to see if it offers any solutions.
As of Mar. 23, unnamed sources told the CBC that “some premiers were eager for a co-ordinated, national response while others were concerned about what invoking the act would mean for local decision making,” after Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland called the Emergencies Act a "measure of last resort.”
But Colleen Flood and Teresa Scassa, legal scholars at the University of Ottawa, argued in a separate CBC piece that provinces may be unable to handle the level of testing and establishment of emergency shelters on their own. Flood and Scassa also argued that the Emergencies Act would allow the government to “use the power to require, use or dispose of ‘property’ in order to access data held by telecommunications companies.”
Leah West, lecturer of International Affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, says she’s not sure that the federal act does allow for data collection the way some provincial laws do. The law would, however, help the government do something like coordinate private industry players in pumping out medical supplies, or manage cross-provincial food supply issues, says West.
West, along with Craig Forcese is the author of a forthcoming chapter of National Security Law, which notes that “In Canada, very few threats reach the magnitude of an emergency. National security law is, therefore, usually regular law, and not a special body of rules applicable only in extraordinary circumstances.”
The way the act defines an emergency is a key consideration in why the act has not been invoked since 1988, says West, as the law specifically focuses on situations that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Indeed, West says, some of the provincial emergency acts include much harsher fines than the national act.
“They can’t invoke it to tell us the same things the provinces have already told us,” she says.
The federal government also has laws like the Emergency Management Act, Public Safety Act, Quarantine Act, and the National Defence Act at its disposal, while the Emergencies Act has “the threshold for an emergency declaration, albeit in broad terms likely to attract only the most deferential of judicial review,” West and Forcese write.
The definition under the act that would best fit the COVID-19 pandemic is “a public welfare emergency,” which would be invoked by cabinet and comes with its own “basket” of powers, says West. Cabinet would also need to issue regulations to use those powers, often with timeframes attached. The process has a series of checks and balances in place — such as a requirement to consult provinces. The law itself also says that it should not be interpreted to allow “the detention, imprisonment or internment of Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability,” and that special temporary measures “would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency.” The act cannot be used purpose of terminating a strike or lock-out or imposing a settlement in a labour dispute.
Nonetheless, in a podcast, West, and Stephanie Carvin note that emergency law can be “dangerous” and “corrosive” to civil liberties, and the proper use of legislation must be necessary and proportional. As their book says, “democracies depend on a system of checks and balances that constrain the exercise of power. Yet, emergencies usually require the swift and resolute exercise of power. While law applicable in normal situations diffuses power, emergencies concentrate it.”
The Emergencies Act, if violated, does allow the imposition a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months (or both, on summary conviction), or a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years (or both, upon indictment.) It also allows for travel restrictions, evacuations and allows the government to demand use of property or distribution of goods.
“Invoking this, there is serious power to restrict our liberties that should only be used for a temporary mandate with a prescribed ending,” she says. “Because the powers under this act are such that the government can do things it could not otherwise do. You want to make this a tool of last resort.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/emergencies-act-different-than-any-other-law-of-canada/328104?utm_campaign=Editorial - Law Times&utm_content=123988428&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-301805746865949
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016
Welcome to the thread. Eligibility check under process is your MyCIC status, which will remain the same until your application is approved and you are issued a COPR.
All applications go through the following stages as per Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:
1. R10 (completeness check)
2. Medicals
3. Criminality
4. Security
To read on the stages, see https://bit.ly/2JAlDEu
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016
Currently IRCC offices are working with limited capacity.
Usually most applicants see medicals passed as the first update. However, with the current COVID-19 situation, it may take longer to get any updates.
When I initially came to Canada on Study permit, I didn't provided information about foreign work experience when applying for study permit. I have also applied for co-op and PGWP those application didn't contain foreign work details as well, so If I were to use that experience now as part of EE would there be any complication or query on why I never provided that experience before.? If CIC were to enquire about that what should my answer be.?
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016
I can't tell you what your answer should be, that is for your figure out. I can tell you what the law says and how is expected.
This is from one of my old posts, and I am posting it here again.
The issue was, whether prior TRV application in which an employment detail was left out can be added to the PR application, and would this inconsistency be of any concern.
The answer is simple. If you file any application with IRCC, TRV, WP, PR etc, any of them can be looked into to review your current application and any inconsistency can be a cause of misrepresentation. All applications have to be consistent, and if they are not, a reason on why you omitted the information has to be provided.
Now I will not be deliberating that if the prior application was refused, why it should be looked into again, or you file a TRV before and you did not disclose an employment but subsequently claimed pints for it in PR and got a PPR without any issues. This is all anecdotal. Just because someone was not caught, does not make him innocent.
They law is clear, while applications for different types of status engage different considerations, it does not necessarily flow that statements made in temporary residence applications cannot affect subsequent permanent residence applications (or vice versa). In Suri v. Canada (available at http://canlii.ca/t/grvwt), the court found that the Officer’s concerns vis-à-vis the contradictions between the Applicants’ temporary and permanent applications were reasonable and based on that the applicant's misrepresentation ban was upheld.
Federal courts have ruled on this numerous times.
Similarly, in the case of In Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 at para 28, Justice Strickland summarized the key considerations outlined in the jurisprudence, including the fact that paragraph 40(1)(a) is to be given a broad interpretation, capturing misrepresentations even if made by a third party such as a consultant, without the knowledge of the applicant (see also Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 647 at para 25). The only exception to this rule is narrow and applies in the truly extraordinary circumstances where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed that they were not misrepresenting a material fact and knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control.
If you do not like or agree with what I have stated, you have no obligation to follow it or believe it. If you decide to send me PMs to argue your case, I will not entertain you, because educating you in not my job.
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016
ITA - Feb 5 2020
AOR - Mar 11 2020
CEC
I had given biomentric in Dec for my WP renewal.. will I be getting biometric request again? pls confirm
AOR - Mar 11 2020
CEC
I had given biomentric in Dec for my WP renewal.. will I be getting biometric request again? pls confirm
Yes. And you have already paid for the biometric fees in case you've gotten an AOR.
- Sep 21, 2015
- 9,917
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 4112
- App. Filed.......
- 03-09-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 01-10-2015
- AOR Received.
- 03-09-2015
- Med's Done....
- 17-08-2015
- Passport Req..
- 05-04-2016
- VISA ISSUED...
- 12-04-2016
- LANDED..........
- 05-05-2016