No SIN# expired PR card

[eliyana]

I have been checking online re this situation and have not found any solution. I have an expired PR card but could not renew at this point as I haven't fulfilled my residency. However I never got a SIN# nor a health card back when I landed. So now when I went to Service Canada (2 locations already) they declined because my PR card and COPR expired a long time. But immigration lawyers I consulted said their clients in similar situation always get their SIN#. I don't know if anyone has any positive experience or can provide any insights. For those who were not able to get SIN#, what did you do? Just stay here till you can renew your PR card after 2 years and not work?

Does it help to try different Service Canada locations? Or even in other provinces, e.g. Alberta? I read somewhere that someone was able to get a SIN# via mail option... anyone in similar situation had a positive outcome?

Thank you.

 

[steaky]

I have been checking online re this situation and have not found any solution. I have an expired PR card but could not renew at this point as I haven't fulfilled my residency. However I never got a SIN# nor a health card back when I landed. So now when I went to Service Canada (2 locations already) they declined because my PR card and COPR expired a long time. But immigration lawyers I consulted said their clients in similar situation always get their SIN#. I don't know if anyone has any positive experience or can provide any insights. For those who were not able to get SIN#, what did you do? Just stay here till you can renew your PR card after 2 years and not work?

Does it help to try different Service Canada locations? Or even in other provinces, e.g. Alberta? I read somewhere that someone was able to get a SIN# via mail option... anyone in similar situation had a positive outcome?

Thank you.

Are youtubers not work?

 

[armoured]

Does it help to try different Service Canada locations? Or even in other provinces, e.g. Alberta? I read somewhere that someone was able to get a SIN# via mail option... anyone in similar situation had a positive outcome?

I would definitely apply by mail as well to see if it works.

There are some other threads on the topic:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/my-wife-cannot-get-sin-number-to-work-even-though-she-is-now-a-pr-through-spousal-sponsorship.782893/page-2#post-10333190
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/activate-my-sin-with-expired-pr-in-ontario.760795/#post-10068708

Hope these help. Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be single solution. Try everything you can. As you'll see in the threads, my view is you have an unqualified right to work and hence to a SIN and cannot be refused. But getting there is not so straight forward.

I'd also suggest going back to Service Canada and insisting on a written refusal. With that you could ask a lawyer to see about challenging, or at least start with a 'issue this now or we will take you to court letter.' It's also possible that requiring a written refusal would kick things up to someone senior who would then get worried and issue you the SIN.

 

[eliyana]

Are youtubers not work?

Thank you for the tip!

 

[eliyana]

I would definitely apply by mail as well to see if it works.

There are some other threads on the topic:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/my-wife-cannot-get-sin-number-to-work-even-though-she-is-now-a-pr-through-spousal-sponsorship.782893/page-2#post-10333190
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/activate-my-sin-with-expired-pr-in-ontario.760795/#post-10068708

Hope these help. Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be single solution. Try everything you can. As you'll see in the threads, my view is you have an unqualified right to work and hence to a SIN and cannot be refused. But getting there is not so straight forward.

I'd also suggest going back to Service Canada and insisting on a written refusal. With that you could ask a lawyer to see about challenging, or at least start with a 'issue this now or we will take you to court letter.' It's also possible that requiring a written refusal would kick things up to someone senior who would then get worried and issue you the SIN.

Thank you for the positivity and encouragement, you made some good points above. Tbh, I wasn't so sure about posting as some people just use the opportunity to bring you down. So thank you very much.

 

[armoured]

Thank you for the positivity and encouragement, you made some good points above. Tbh, I wasn't so sure about posting as some people just use the opportunity to bring you down. So thank you very much.

Good luck, let others know here how it works out.

One thing I do not know the answer to: Service Canada is operated by the employment ministry (employment and social development I think ti's called) but it is NOT the same thing as the ministry and provides services across many departments. Point being, I believe it (or at least the service canada outlets) has more limited 'authority' with respect to some things than the ESDC itself. Anyway I think that getting a refusal in a Service Canada outlet is NOT necessarily the final word, you may have to push by going straight to ESDC or otherwise. Also ask your MP for help, they should know that PRs are being denied SINs.

 

[canuck78]

I have been checking online re this situation and have not found any solution. I have an expired PR card but could not renew at this point as I haven't fulfilled my residency. However I never got a SIN# nor a health card back when I landed. So now when I went to Service Canada (2 locations already) they declined because my PR card and COPR expired a long time. But immigration lawyers I consulted said their clients in similar situation always get their SIN#. I don't know if anyone has any positive experience or can provide any insights. For those who were not able to get SIN#, what did you do? Just stay here till you can renew your PR card after 2 years and not work?

Does it help to try different Service Canada locations? Or even in other provinces, e.g. Alberta? I read somewhere that someone was able to get a SIN# via mail option... anyone in similar situation had a positive outcome?

Thank you.

How much time have you spent in Canada in the past 5 years? Since landing? By escalating your quest you do run the risk of someone contacting IRCC about the fact that you don’t meet RO. That is one of the reason people usually wait out their 2 year period and minimize any chances of interaction with IRCC. How did you enter Canada? Assume land border. Was not meeting your RO mentioned when you entered?


Would recommend taking out emergency medical insurance if you haven’t already so at least you have insurance if you end up in hospital.

 

[armoured]

By escalating your quest you do run the risk of someone contacting IRCC about the fact that you don’t meet RO. That is one of the reason people usually wait out their 2 year period and minimize any chances of interaction with IRCC.

Wait - are you implying that others, even other agencies, 'report' individuals who are ... in Canada legally? For making entirely legal requests needed to exercise a PR's right to work? That IRCC 'acts' upon such inquiries? When there is no underlying illegal act (taht is a crime carried out by the PR), nor direct inquiry made by the PR themself?

Let's hear this straight out - you're implying that IRCC carried out serious formal adjudications on a predicate where nothing illegal has occurred. I'm not aware of such a thing. The only sort-of exception being, infrequently, those who make applications to renew cards (not the case here) or to sponsor a relative (both of which direct requests not just inquiries, and by the PR) - some act which may require IRCC to determine whether an individual already in Canada is inadmissible. There is no such requirement - at least as far as I'm aware - for ESDC to make such a confirmation or request of IRCC nor for either to determine the PR is admissible.

This is a very serious point you're making, and if you're going to make it, please be specific and back up that point - at least with some evidence that this has occurred before.

 

[Copingwithlife]

It states what’s required to get a SIN
It’s black & white .

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin/required-documents.html

If you use the COPR within one year of becoming a permanent resident, it is acceptable. After this period, the permanent resident card is required.

What’s an MP going to say contradictory as to what the regulations state what’s required from the Government THEY represent ?
You IMPLYING that the rules shouldn’t be followed ?
Someone doesn’t want to abide by the RO ? So be it . But why then should policy suddenly be changed to accommodate them ? Why even have rules is what’s being suggested continuously by some on here . The RO is RIDICULOUSLY generous.


Service Canada is a department of the ESDC. Same as Employment Insurance. They follow the policy set out by the ESDC.
I can just picture some on here clutching their pearls thinking of the audacity that some Government department is actually enforcing the rules when some can’t manage to maintain their RO .
NOTHING is stopping the person from sending in an application to get a new PR card . Nothing. Then let the chips fall where they may if there RO is investigated further. Rules are there for a reason

 

[armoured]

It states what’s required to get a SIN
It’s black & white .

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin/required-documents.html

If you use the COPR within one year of becoming a permanent resident, it is acceptable. After this period, the permanent resident card is required.

What’s an MP going to say contradictory as to what the regulations state what’s required from the Government THEY represent ?
You IMPLYING that the rules shouldn’t be followed ?

'Rules' that are wrong and incompatible with the law and rights under the charter should not be applied, no.

"The rules" - regulations issued by Service Canada - are not "laws". Where regulations contradict what is in the relevant legislation, with due accord given to constitutional acts (laws) as having a special status, including the charter of rights and freedoms, then the regulations are wrong. That's a pretty basic point. Even laws can and are found to be unconstitutional and regulations are often changed for similar reasons (see eg the law about second-gen Canadians). "Rules" like this are frequently found to be incorrect or incompatible and revised, and sometimes amount to no more than guidance to staff and may be overridden or changed internally (although to know in more detail one might have to consult the published regs / orders-in-council and similar, which this miight be I can't tell from the link above).

The charter covers the right to seek work for citizens and PRs; since the SIN is effectively required to (seek) work, it should not be unreasonably denied. There's no additional requirement in law - anywhere - that says one must be in compliance with the residency obligation to work or seek work. (If the government wishes to pursue individuals already in Canada for being out of compliance, by all means - let it do so - according to laws and regs. But the idea that the 'punishment' for being out of compliance with the RO is not being allowed to work is ... not supported in law.)

No, the only basis to deny the ability to work (and seek work) is that the individual is no longer a PR. And the requirement to prove one's compliance with the residency obligation, by means of a new PR card, to get a SIN beyond identifying oneself as a PR is absurd, when the government itself has the additional information (whether the PR status has ever been cancelled - which is all that is required to determine whether someone is still a PR). I don't believe ESDC can hide behind the idea that some 'other part of government' has that information, nor come up with additional, specific barriers. (Note, this is a quite different situation than what is required for health coverage - what might be applicable there is no guide for the SIN issuance).

Consider this: it's 100% a fact that any PR or citizen who ALREADY has a SIN is allowed to work in Canada, regardless of compliance with the residency obligation. Is the government really going to attempt to argue - legally - that this is a coherent basis on which to deny someone a fundamental right? Obviously it is NOT whether one is in compliance or not, but an administrative requirement that is not (in my opinion) sustainable.

 

[zaid9199]

I was in a similar situation to you when I first returned here. Had an expired PR Card, no SIN. I applied for renewal without meeting my RO since really needed my SIN. It took me 2.5 years to be able to receive the renewed PR Card and apply for a SIN. And yes, no one would employ you without your SIN, so I wasn’t working for all that time. Very frustrating, I know.

 

[Copingwithlife]

'Rules' that are wrong and incompatible with the law and rights under the charter should not be applied, no.

"The rules" - regulations issued by Service Canada - are not "laws". Where regulations contradict what is in the relevant legislation, with due accord given to constitutional acts (laws) as having a special status, including the charter of rights and freedoms, then the regulations are wrong. That's a pretty basic point. Even laws can and are found to be unconstitutional and regulations are often changed for similar reasons (see eg the law about second-gen Canadians). "Rules" like this are frequently found to be incorrect or incompatible and revised, and sometimes amount to no more than guidance to staff and may be overridden or changed internally (although to know in more detail one might have to consult the published regs / orders-in-council and similar, which this miight be I can't tell from the link above).

The charter covers the right to seek work for citizens and PRs; since the SIN is effectively required to (seek) work, it should not be unreasonably denied. There's no additional requirement in law - anywhere - that says one must be in compliance with the residency obligation to work or seek work. (If the government wishes to pursue individuals already in Canada for being out of compliance, by all means - let it do so - according to laws and regs. But the idea that the 'punishment' for being out of compliance with the RO is not being allowed to work is ... not supported in law.)

No, the only basis to deny the ability to work (and seek work) is that the individual is no longer a PR. And the requirement to prove one's compliance with the residency obligation, by means of a new PR card, to get a SIN beyond identifying oneself as a PR is absurd, when the government itself has the additional information (whether the PR status has ever been cancelled - which is all that is required to determine whether someone is still a PR). I don't believe ESDC can hide behind the idea that some 'other part of government' has that information, nor come up with additional, specific barriers. (Note, this is a quite different situation than what is required for health coverage - what might be applicable there is no guide for the SIN issuance).

Consider this: it's 100% a fact that any PR or citizen who ALREADY has a SIN is allowed to work in Canada, regardless of compliance with the residency obligation. Is the government really going to attempt to argue - legally - that this is a coherent basis on which to deny someone a fundamental right? Obviously it is NOT whether one is in compliance or not, but an administrative requirement that is not (in my opinion) sustainable.

Then get the Government to change it then if you’re losing sleep over it . Until that policy is changed, it’ll be applied as it stands.
And btw , I never mentioned they were “ laws”, I specifically mentioned policy / regulations.
If the Government wasn’t so lax at the border in enforcement of the RO , which at 2/5 years residency is a joke, we wouldn’t be having these examples of people not being here for years, returning, and expecting to be welcomed with open arms .

 

[armoured]

Then get the Government to change it then if you’re losing sleep over it . Until that policy is changed, it’ll be applied as it stands.

To get the government to change it, you need cases where people specifically get refusals so that those can then be challenged.

So that's exactly what I'm doing. Albeit at a distance because I'm not losing sleep over it, and not personally affected by it.

And btw , I never mentioned they were “ laws”, I specifically mentioned policy / regulations.

You did refer to regulations, and also rules. The point still stands: rules/procedures/policies, where in conflict with law, should be changed. And in direct response to your question above ("You IMPLYING that the rules shouldn’t be followed ?"), my answer remains valid: yes, where it contradicts law.

If the Government wasn’t so lax at the border in enforcement of the RO , which at 2/5 years residency is a joke, we wouldn’t be having these examples of people not being here for years, returning, and expecting to be welcomed with open arms .

Here we get into 'policy': one's opinions can differ on what the relative benefits might be of more or less strict enforcement of the RO itself (and believe it or not, I don't have a fixed opinion on that - there are trade-offs and I'd probably be fine with a somewhat more strict approach, ideally if some other procedural issues and speed of processing were also fixed).

But I honestly don't believe that ANYONE with a brain could possibly advocate for or believe that keeping someone who is in Canada legally as a PR from working by denying them a SIN number is a good policy. Bluntly, it's an astoundingly stupid approach, in addition to contradicting the law and the charter - it just pushes people into underground work, prevents them from establishing themselves, contributes to more illegality, poverty and dependence on welfare and charity, with precious little effect on RO compliance. The only reason it persists is it probably effects less than a thousand people at any given time (this is very much a guess).

"Enforcing" a slightly more strict residency obligation in this way (if that's the point, and personally I don't believe it is that intentional a goal behind it - I suspect it's instead the unintended consequences of some other policy objective) is the worst possible way to go about it. (Well, the worst yet, anyway)

Think RO and/or RO enforcement should be stricter? Okay - that's a reasonable position, I can respect that. Do it at the border or before, though.

But once CBSA and/or IRCC ('the govt') has admitted someone via a recognized legal procedure and therefore they're here legally, preventing them from working is a zombie policy that serves no purpose. As well as being, IMO, contrary to the law.

 

[canuck78]

Wait - are you implying that others, even other agencies, 'report' individuals who are ... in Canada legally? For making entirely legal requests needed to exercise a PR's right to work? That IRCC 'acts' upon such inquiries? When there is no underlying illegal act (taht is a crime carried out by the PR), nor direct inquiry made by the PR themself?

Let's hear this straight out - you're implying that IRCC carried out serious formal adjudications on a predicate where nothing illegal has occurred. I'm not aware of such a thing. The only sort-of exception being, infrequently, those who make applications to renew cards (not the case here) or to sponsor a relative (both of which direct requests not just inquiries, and by the PR) - some act which may require IRCC to determine whether an individual already in Canada is inadmissible. There is no such requirement - at least as far as I'm aware - for ESDC to make such a confirmation or request of IRCC nor for either to determine the PR is admissible.

This is a very serious point you're making, and if you're going to make it, please be specific and back up that point - at least with some evidence that this has occurred before.

I’m suggesting that, for example, if you take whatever Canadian department to court the government could contact IRCC about your status in Canada thus triggering potential issue with your RO.

 

[canuck78]

To get the government to change it, you need cases where people specifically get refusals so that those can then be challenged.

So that's exactly what I'm doing. Albeit at a distance because I'm not losing sleep over it, and not personally affected by it.



You did refer to regulations, and also rules. The point still stands: rules/procedures/policies, where in conflict with law, should be changed. And in direct response to your question above ("You IMPLYING that the rules shouldn’t be followed ?"), my answer remains valid: yes, where it contradicts law.



Here we get into 'policy': one's opinions can differ on what the relative benefits might be of more or less strict enforcement of the RO itself (and believe it or not, I don't have a fixed opinion on that - there are trade-offs and I'd probably be fine with a somewhat more strict approach, ideally if some other procedural issues and speed of processing were also fixed).

But I honestly don't believe that ANYONE with a brain could possibly advocate for or believe that keeping someone who is in Canada legally as a PR from working by denying them a SIN number is a good policy. Bluntly, it's an astoundingly stupid approach, in addition to contradicting the law and the charter - it just pushes people into underground work, prevents them from establishing themselves, contributes to more illegality, poverty and dependence on welfare and charity, with precious little effect on RO compliance. The only reason it persists is it probably effects less than a thousand people at any given time (this is very much a guess).

"Enforcing" a slightly more strict residency obligation in this way (if that's the point, and personally I don't believe it is that intentional a goal behind it - I suspect it's instead the unintended consequences of some other policy objective) is the worst possible way to go about it. (Well, the worst yet, anyway)

Think RO and/or RO enforcement should be stricter? Okay - that's a reasonable position, I can respect that. Do it at the border or before, though.

But once CBSA and/or IRCC ('the govt') has admitted someone via a recognized legal procedure and therefore they're here legally, preventing them from working is a zombie policy that serves no purpose. As well as being, IMO, contrary to the law.

Denying someone the ability to work or access healthcare without a valid PR card is one of the ways Canada attempts to make sure people are compliant with their RO. Most sign up for SIN#s on arrival or at birth so most would have a SIN#. This is a fairly unusual situation. Agree that enforcement should be done at the border but you and I know that border agents are busy and enforcing RO is not a priority. Also in place to minimize fraud since if people have been away for often 5+ years there can be concerns about someone using their identification. There is a market for both SIN#s and health cards/numbers that people allow others to use when they know they no plans to return to Canada.