Sponsorship default mess

[keesio]

People need to be careful what they sign. I hear about this way to often (not just immigration related)

 

[mikeymyke]

How the heck does he even get close to $1000 for welfare?

 

[CdnandTrini]

How the heck does he even get close to $1000 for welfare?

lol......good question mm and this is what I was wondering as well. Close to $1000.00 sounds more like a disability pension which is not welfare and exempt from the repayment obligation.

Kacy are you sure it is welfare? What province are you referring to?

 

[screech339]

lol......good question mm and this is what I was wondering as well. Close to $1000.00 sounds more like a disability pension which is not welfare and exempt from the repayment obligation.

Kacy are you sure it is welfare? What province are you referring to?

The OP did say in post that the government is after him to pay it back. So this is social assistance the father in law is collecting. As for 1000 / month, I am not surprised. Welfare has to help cover cost of living based on where one lives. If father in law lives in Toronto, I would suspect at least 1000 / month to live there.

Screech339

 

[zardoz]

I have never understood why the very first thing that sponsors/co-signers don't do is cancel their commitment with CIC before it goes any further. If the relationship later recovers, then resubmit but don't for <select your personal deity here>'s sake, don't just sit on the fence and think it will be "alright". Most of the time, it won't be and you end up , as in this case, with a potential 12K/year for 10 (now 20) years. That's now nearly a quarter of a million dollars for not biting the bullet.

I have just rethought the maths... it MORE than that because over the lifetime of the commitment, the welfare levels will rise... What is the inflation over 20 years?

 

[screech339]

I have never understood why the very first thing that sponsors/co-signers don't do is cancel their commitment with CIC before it goes any further. If the relationship later recovers, then resubmit but don't for <select your personal deity here>'s sake, don't just sit on the fence and think it will be "alright". Most of the time, it won't be and you end up , as in this case, with a potential 12K/year for 10 (now 20) years. That's now nearly a quarter of a million dollars for not biting the bullet.

I have just rethought the maths... it MORE than that because over the lifetime of the commitment, the welfare levels will rise... What is the inflation over 20 years?

Actually it's 10 year commitment. The father in law landed under the old pgp rules so 10 years apply here. Not 20 years.

But yes it is now 20 years for those sponsored through pgp under the new rules.

 

[zardoz]

That's why I put the 20 in brackets. The calculation should be seen as applicable (and a warning) to the current PGP intake. In the OP's case, we are looking at about 130K, taking into account 10 years worth of inflation.

 

[canadianwoman]

The father-in-law may be collecting welfare under false pretenses. If he is living with a relative, he may not need as much as he is claiming. So the OP should inform the welfare agency that is giving the father-in-law the money that he does not need as much as he is getting, and there may be welfare fraud. And before this, I would try talking to the father-in-law and the family he is living with, explaining the situation. After all, the grandson who is being harmed is their relative too. If they won't stop the welfare, then try reporting them for fraud. (It may not be fraud, of course, but the welfare agency should be aware of the situation so they can investigate.)

 

[screech339]

We don't know for sure that the father in law is collecting more than he is entitled to. To qualify or get welfare, you pretty much have to jump through hoops to get it by providing all relevant documentations to prove you do in fact need social assistance. Governments do make it much harder to get on it nowadays.

 

[benjis_monikuss]

Hi Kacy,

I don't know how is going the relationship with your father in law.
But is there any chance he doesn't know that you will pay for his welfare.
You ate the father of his grand son .
You can try to speak with him.
Good luck

Wow... If he ate his grandson my bet is the relationship isn't very good at all.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Now, this is what is troubling about this welfare procedure. My understanding is welfare applicants go through some checks before they can qualify. How is it possible for "quite well to do" parents to collect welfare? What kind of checks(if any) were done to determine they really needed financial assistance? I don't want to think they don't do any checks for sponsored persons but I'm having a hard time understanding how wealthy people can get on welfare. Either way it sucks for the sponsor and taxpayers. Does anyone have insight as to how exactly the welfare application process goes?

This is seriously some unfortunate situation, isn't' there a provision where sponsor says I can't afford it as I have my own family to take care of

I know someone who sponsored their folks and they quite well to do, the folks didn't get along with the wife, went to a different province and living with their daughter BUT collect welfare as well. Now, this has been like 5-6 years and the sponsor till date hasn't got any collection letter, now dunno if it will come later but the case was that there was indifference between sponsor and parent and things went hostile

 

[screech339]

Now, this is what is troubling about this welfare procedure. My understanding is welfare applicants go through some checks before they can qualify. How is it possible for "quite well to do" parents to collect welfare? What kind of checks(if any) were done to determine they really needed financial assistance? I don't want to think they don't do any checks for sponsored persons but I'm having a hard time understanding how wealthy people can get on welfare. Either way it sucks for the sponsor and taxpayers. Does anyone have insight as to how exactly the welfare application process goes?

We are not talking about well to do parents here. We are talking about the father in law here. Is he well to do now? Probably not, otherwise he wouldn't be on social assistance.

 

[SenoritaBella]

In many cultures, even after divorce the parent-in-law relationship continues to exist especially if they had children. Plus, no one imagines their relative would do such a thing until it happens. You are right though, we need to make changes to legal obligations promptly as we experiences relationship status changes. I prefer the supervisa or regular visitor visa.

I would like to see changes to the welfare program though. Situations like these, I believe the sponsor should be notified within one month of the first welfare payment . This gives them an opportunity to make provisions for their relative.

I have never understood why the very first thing that sponsors/co-signers don't do is cancel their commitment with CIC before it goes any further. If the relationship later recovers, then resubmit but don't for <select your personal deity here>'s sake, don't just sit on the fence and think it will be "alright". Most of the time, it won't be and you end up , as in this case, with a potential 12K/year for 10 (now 20) years. That's now nearly a quarter of a million dollars for not biting the bullet.

I have just rethought the maths... it MORE than that because over the lifetime of the commitment, the welfare levels will rise... What is the inflation over 20 years?

 

[SenoritaBella]

I am aware of that and specifically responding to the story of the "well do parents". It's in the quote, if you missed it. Also, not everyone on social assistance is genuinely in need. Many work "under the table" for cash and don't declare those earnings. That is fraud.

We are not talking about well to do parents here. We are talking about the father in law here. Is he well to do now? Probably not, otherwise he wouldn't be on social assistance.

 

[MofC2014]

I am aware of that and specifically responding to the story of the "well do parents". It's in the quote, if you missed it. Also, not everyone on social assistance is genuinely in need. Many work "under the table" for cash and don't declare those earnings. That is fraud.

And the wealthy also abuse the system and collect social assistance, a good example of this was Jack Layton and Olivia Chow who were living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, while their combined income was around $120K back in the 80s. If one knows how to use the system, welfare can be quite lucrative. People not only collect cash, they get housing, transit allowance etc.