No SIN# expired PR card
- Thread starter eliyana
- Start date
If this is explicitly designed as a way to 'enforce compliance' is an EXCEPTIONALLY stupid policy - and, at least as far as denying a PR who is in Canada the right to work, likely illegal. It should be changed. (Note, I don't agree with but not claiming that this applies to access to paid healthcare).
All the more reason to challenge it as a capricious and arbitrary policy, applied effectively randomly (to people that just 'didn't happen to get one', often as children) that serves no evident purpose.
That is not a defence of the policy. Particularly when 'you and I know' that it's a STUPID policy.
By all means, ask for identification - but not the one form of identification that only the government can provide, and won't. Although I'm not clear how it explicitly is a concern, in that the holders can be required to provide photo identification. If there was some other concern about, for example, accessing EI or other 'funds' via the SIN# - then block those, not the ability to work.
If anything, this sounds like an argument AGAINST the current policy: forcing people who are in the country LEGALLY to access an illegal market to use a (fraudulent) SIN because they're denied the one they have a right to.
I'd hazard a guess that the reason we don't see more such cases is that those in this situation bump up against the problem, and based on an economic inability to wait out/pursue a challenge to the policy, and a fear that they will be pursued by IRCC (as you suggest in your other post), decide it's better, faster, cheaper and safer for them to go the 'illegally borrow a SIN' route you suggest. And the worst thing is, they might be right and probably are acting quite rationally. Good job, government.
Forcing people who'd like to do something legal and to which they have a legal right to rely upon illegal markets is one of the hallmarks of an idiotic, backward policy.
The issue is not common, largely because even when new PRs are doing a so-called soft-landing it is easy and quick enough to get a SIN# that relatively few PRs, if not very few, fail to take this step. So there has not been a lot of reporting about how those affected best navigate the bureaucratic hurdles imposed in these situation. Some of the reporting here, though more about difficulty getting a dormant SIN# restored to active status (running into the same, must present valid PR card catch-22), is linked by @armoured above. However, no clearly reliable solution emerges from these discussions.
You may be able to learn more or even be assisted if you hire (pay for) analysis and advice from a certified public accountant (not just some so-called tax professional who does what are more or less out-of-the-box tax returns). Or a lawyer. A lawyer actually hired to assess your particular situation and provide advice if not assistance.
I suspect what the consulted lawyers said was not about this situation in particular but, rather, about their PR clients generally, that is that PRs generally get their SIN# without a problem. Characterizations like "always" are always (well not really always) subject to exceptions. As noted, relatively few, if not very few fail to get their SIN# timely.
If, however, the lawyers were actually referring to situations similar to yours, that is situations involving PRs who do not possess a valid PR card as needed to obtain a SIN#, hire one of them to either advise you about how it was those others got their SIN# or to actually assist you in the process. And then come back here and clearly explain how to do it, since despite it being uncommon, it happens and there are sure to be others who could use this information.
Frankly, sorry to be blunt, but it appears the imagination may be working overtime. There is no basis for suggesting that there is any "risk" of RO enforcement action triggered by proceedings before other Canadian government bodies, let alone informant-like tips. There is NO hint, none, that inadmissibility proceedings for a breach of the RO are triggered by anything other than being engaged in a transaction or proceeding with CBSA or IRCC that involves a PR Residency Determination, either inherently such as attendant PR card and PR TD applications, or arising in connection with a verification of valid PR status in which inadmissibility for failure to comply with the RO is implicated by apparent facts, such as in citizenship applications, sponsorship applications, and of course applications for permission to physically enter Canada (the most common scenario, Port-of-Entry screening).
On the other hand, there is indeed widely experienced fear rooted in the apprehension that any contact with authorities can trigger some kind of negative enforcement and threaten an immigrant's status in this country. This is especially common if there are major cultural differences involved. Moreover, in some situations it is, apparently, fueled by deliberate misinformation employed to perpetuate personal domination.
That is, there is indeed widespread fear about being reported to immigration authorities, among many immigrants generally, but there is NO need for a PR to fear being reported for failing to comply with the RO except in connection with immigration transactions for which PR status will be or may be verified.
This is not to say there is no risk of someone contacting IRCC to report a PR is in breach of the RO. All sorts of Karens out and about these days. But no risk of that causing the PR a problem. Any such reporting will not present a risk of IRCC commencing, based on such information, inadmissibility proceedings for a RO breach.
I could be wrong. Been there, done that. I am generally willing to acknowledge it when it happens, with apologies; I like to get things right even if it shows I am wrong. But there is simply NOTHING in any of the operational manuals, PDIs, online information, regulations, any of the ATI responses I have seen, or any of the actual cases reported in IAD and Federal Court decisions, that so much as hints that CBSA or IRCC will proceed to investigate PR inadmissibility for a breach of the RO that is not attendant a transaction with CBSA or IRCC in which the validity of the PR's status is at issue.
May be worth noting that what might trigger inadmissibility proceedings for serious criminality, on the other hand, is not at all clear, but obviously not limited to client-initiated transactions like RO enforcement. Should not be difficult to identify reasons why these different types of inadmissibility will be approached quite differently.
But what it is important to recognize is that a failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation is in NO way illegal. Failing to comply with the RO is NOT "breaking" any rules. Complying with the RO is NOT even a condition for keeping PR status. So failure to comply does NOT constitute a failure to follow the rules.
While I have not looked closely at the legislative record when, nearly a quarter century ago now, Parliament radically revised the law governing permanent residents, given how much attention there is given to the meaning of the words used, it is certain that a Residency "Obligation" was deliberately adopted rather than a Residency "Requirement," making an intended difference.
While it is not illegal to breach the RO, let alone a crime or legal-wrong, and a breach is not self-enforcing but is, rather, automatically cured just by staying in Canada long enough to meet the "obligation" of presence 2/5 years, despite all that it is nonetheless a legal obligation, so a failure to comply can result in inadmissibility and loss of PR status at the discretion of a CBSA or IRCC immigration officer acting as a Minister's Delegate, subject to the discretion of an IAD panel, with lots of discretion to waive the breach or otherwise not take action against the PR.
So, if in fact a PR in breach of the RO is waived through a PoE, without committing any fraud (no misrepresentations in the process of gaining permission to enter Canada), they have NO reason to fear RO enforcement action as long as they do not personally initiate any immigration transactions requiring verification the validity of their PR status (proof of status is different than verification of status validity, meaning not inadmissible).
Apparently there is no shortage of those advocating a more strict (or even a lot more strict) regulatory scheme governing PRs (and typically immigrants generally), including more strict enforcement of a residency requirement. Seems likely they will be disappointed for at awhile to come; not even Harper's government, the draconian draconian, went after more strictly applying or enforcing the RO.
Qualifying Criteria In Other Contexts:
Meanwhile, yes, there are indeed some significant legal-disabilities potentially imposing hardship on PRs who lack proof of status, ranging from obtaining provincial health care services to getting a SIN#.
Even though just about everyone agrees that "justice delayed is justice denied," sometimes said to be a legal maxim, there tends to be rather little agreement as to what constitutes an outcome in a timely fashion, and widespread misunderstanding of what is a timely disposition in matters of law. Spoiler alert: legal redress tends to take much longer than many apprehend.
In the law it can take YEARS to obtain that which the law dictates they are entitled to. Justice rendered in that despite how long it takes. This is true even when there is a wrongful withholding of that which someone is entitled to.
So there is a legal pathway for the PR without a PR card to get the SIN# they are entitled to, but it appears (unless and until someone delivers news of a better solution for PRs in this situation) that will probably require obtaining proof of PR status, which can take many months or longer, and some PRs in RO breach will elect to postpone doing that even longer to avoid the risk of RO inadmissibility proceedings. I will not presume to be a fair judge of whether this imposes what the law would consider an unjust delay. I doubt any reforming of this will likely happen, recognizing there may be a lack of sympathy for the non-RO-compliant PR.
That said, I sympathize with PRs caught in these scenarios, at least those who are genuinely seeking to live a life in Canada, and so I fully grasp some of @armoured comments about the practical collateral consequences which in effect can compel individuals who have violated no laws to consider violating the law just to manage in the way they are legally entitled to. For example, a PR can legally work in Canada even though they have no SIN#. But getting a job, dealing with banks, and such, can be near if not impossible unless and until they get their SIN#.
Last edited:
Most using SIN# and health cards that don’t belong to them are not in Canada legally and have likely overstayed their visa/permits. I don’t believe that those waiting to get a valid PR card would risk using someone else’s SIN# or health card number because they have much more to lose than if in Canada without status. In general most prioritize returning to Canada with a valid PR card so this is a relatively rare situation. In case where PRs have not met their RO and do not have a valid PR card most will take into account whether they will need access to healthcare or can survive without working in rare cases where person doesn’t have a SIN# when deciding whether they should attempt to return to Canada and potentially wait out the 2 years of not reported.
More callous and frankly immoral non-response responses, either illogical or dead-on channeling the "let them eat cake" vibe.
Let's go through this line by line.
Callous garbage logic. 'Survive without working' - it's a right. And what about those who can't survive without working? They will of course do what they can to survive, i.e. : this policy is forcing them to break the law.
Even if they do have the money to wait it out: it's a right.
As for this 'it'll make them think harder about coming to Canada therefore they don't need it' - apart from WTF?, if you want stricter enforcement at the border, ENACT STRICTER ENFORCEMENT AT THE BORDER.
Once they are in Canada, they are in Canada legally - and depriving them of rights is not just wrong and immoral, it's stupid and immoral.
Let's go through this line by line.
Irrelevant then. Except as below, illogical.
Just reinforcing the terrible dilemma those in this situation face. Plus, you previously claimed these restrictions exist because of a risk of fraud, and now you say that they're NOT a risk of fraud. Stop moving the goalposts.
The 'rarity' is only an explanation for why it's never been prioritized, not for the logic of it. Again, if it's so rare (although I'd suggest 'uncommon'), no measures to protect against this should be needed. And rarity is certainly not a response to the points that it makes no sense, is likely illegal/contrary to charter (preventing work is contrary to charter for those in Canada legally as PRs), etc.
This word salad tosses together different claims: the let them eat cake argument that they probably have resources because they should have thought about it and they should just 'survive without working' (WTF?), and that punishing people after the fact that depriving them of the ability to work is a good measure to make people think about whether they can afford it to return.
Callous garbage logic. 'Survive without working' - it's a right. And what about those who can't survive without working? They will of course do what they can to survive, i.e. : this policy is forcing them to break the law.
Even if they do have the money to wait it out: it's a right.
As for this 'it'll make them think harder about coming to Canada therefore they don't need it' - apart from WTF?, if you want stricter enforcement at the border, ENACT STRICTER ENFORCEMENT AT THE BORDER.
Once they are in Canada, they are in Canada legally - and depriving them of rights is not just wrong and immoral, it's stupid and immoral.
Last edited:
I agree. These people who land and then leave Canada a few weeks later and don't return for years, need to have PR revoked. When I first became a PR in 1997 you lost your status if you spent 6 months or more out of Canada. In fact, it happened to me. I became a PR in 1997 and stayed here until 2000. I went to Australia for a year and lost my status. I had to apply again and I became a PR in Canada twice as a result.