You previously posted:
Foolish said:
If I'm found not guilty and all charges dropped then she must come back to live with me for two years other wise she faces deportation, right?
The responses rather adequately communicated an answer in the
negative.
So your recent queries are, well, already answered above.
In particular, what CIC does now is
no more your business than it is any other taxpayer's business. (Taxpayers in general should be concerned with fraud and enforcement of the IRPA; but it is the job of CIC to determine if a condition of PR has not been met, not any individual taxpayer . . . your responsibility is to make a report, and once you have done that, what happens is no longer your business.)
If you are being compelled to pay support for her, that is likely to continue for some time to come as even if CIC commences the process to terminate her PR status, based on the failure to satisfy Condition 51, that process can take a long while and especially so if she appeals.
In any event:
Foolish said:
Update.
The bogus criminal charge (assault) that she brought on me has been completely withdrawn by the Crown Attorney. This information was promptly passed along to CBSA and CIC.
Do you think CIC will now snap into action and start to investigate her? Will this hopefully end in deportation?
If you have made a report to CIC, you have done your part. What CIC does depends on their internal review of the case and decision-making. Not really any of your business now, even though there is the potential liability for support factor. The latter is not relevant to CIC's decision-making as to what action to take, or not take, based on the information it has received.
Foolish said:
So if criminal charges are not a requirement for waiving condition 51, then she can just make up the same pack of lies to CIC that she made up to the local police when she first had me charged, and CIC will believe her? What about my side of the story and all my evidence to refute her claim? How is that heard?
CIC must rely on the criminal process to know if the abuse was real or not.
No, CIC will not rely on the criminal process to know if the abuse was real or not.
CIC has its own fact-finding procedure. Once the report is made, CIC would ordinarily review that and decide whether an investigation is warranted. If so, CIC conducts the investigation. Notice is given to the PR. If the PR has not already made a request for an exception to Condition 51 based on abuse, the PR may at that time request the exception. CIC will complete the investigation and decide what action to take, if any. CIC may contact you for more information in the course of its investigation. You have no side to this story. You are a
witness NOT a party.
It is likely a conviction would have been conclusive in the PR's favour, since it would be strong evidence the alleged abuse took place.
The lack of prosecution or dismissal or acquittal, however, has little or no bearing.
There are many reasons for this.
One is that the burden of proof is different. A substantially higher burden of proof must be met to convict an individual of a crime than what is required to prove the same acts in a civil context. In particular, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict. Proof beyond a balance of probabilities is all that is required in the context of showing abuse for purposes of Condition 51.
Secondly, what constitutes acts which are crimes is far more narrow than what constitutes abuse which will result in the exception for Condition 51. For example, insults and name-calling can constitute pyschological abuse for which the exception will apply. Those acts may fall way, way short of acts governed by the criminal law.
In a previous post above I quoted significant parts of CIC's information about this subject and linked the source. That information, and my post as well, clearly reflects that no criminal conviction is necessary . . .
and why this is so.
In any event, again, other than your role as a
witness, what CIC does now is
no more your business than it is any other taxpayer's business.
