Category: Sponsorship

The Court set aside a sponsorship refusal base on a non genuine marriage finding holding that the conclusion based on the short duration of the first marriage was unreasonable.

The court set aside a refusal based on a non genuine marriage noting: [10] The Applicant and Ms. Wong submitted bank statements, bills and other correspondence showing that they shared an address, copies of their driver’s licences showing the same address as well as leases and a joint bank account statement. These documents would seem to indicate the Applicant and his sponsor do cohabit, and the Officer did not explain why she found that the T4 slips outweighed the other evidence contrary in reaching her determination. The submissions also included photos of the Applicant and Ms. Wong at different points in time and statements on their relationship. The notes taken during the interviews also show that both spouses provided roughly the same answers to the questions asked by the Officer about their relationship (Certified Tribunal Record at pages 32 to 43). I am not saying that these pieces of evidence are determinant in assessing the genuineness of the marriage, but I do find that these pieces of evidence were relevant but were not noted by the Officer and were not weighed against the others.

The court set aside a decision holding that the adoption was legal and created a genuine parent child relationship;

The Court set aside a decision where the Member actively discouraged a corroborative witness. The tribunal found against the applicant on grounds of credibility. The court found a breach of natural justice noting: I agree with counsel for the Respondent that the IAD has the right to limit repetitive testimony, but not by effectively excluding witnesses who could offer evidence going to the central issues of the case. The place to control excessive or repetitive evidence on issues of controversy which are central or determinative is generally not at the entrance to the witness box, but once the witness is testifying – and even then the member must grant some latitude to ensure that all important matters are covered. The IAD can, of course, limit the scope of evidence by stipulating certain points that are not in dispute. In a case like this one where the credibility of the Applicant is clearly in issue and where the genuineness of a marriage is in doubt, the evidence of immediate family and close acquaintances is highly relevant and should be heard without reservation. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a matter such as this could be fairly determined after only two hours of evidence, particularly where Mr. Kamtasingh was self-represented and was initially intending to lead evidence from several witnesses. This was a situation where the duty to allow Mr. Kamtasingh to fully present his case was sacrificed for the desire for administrative efficiency. That is not a permissible trade-off:

The Court upheld a decision of the visa officer who found that the child was not a dependent. The child had missed a year of school and alleged it was due to a fracture. The Court dismissed the application notingL Nevertheless, the Applicant argues that her circumstances warrant the benefit of the definition of a “dependent child” and thus she should be deemed to have attended the post- secondary institution and actively pursued a course of study during the period of September 2005 to September 2006, on the basis that she was absent for reason of having suffered a fracture. It is useful to note in this regard that there was not much evidence submitted in regard to the nature of the alleged fracture which is said to justify the one year suspension of studies or any explanation as to why a fracture would have resulted in a withdrawal of studies for a one year period. In such circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to find that an interruption in studies had occurred for that year.

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FINDS THAT SPONSORS INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CAN COLLECT ON SPONSORSHIP DEBTS In a landmark ruling the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the government of Ontario must give notice to sponsors before seeking to collect on defaults from sponsorship undertakings; must give the sponsor an opportunity to make submissions; must consider them; provide reasons for deciding to collect and if guidelines are provided the guidelines cannot fetter the discretion of the officers considering each case. The decision can be found at:

The Court set aside a decision of the Appeal Division which had found that the applicant's marriage was one of convenience. The Court found the credibility findings unreasonable. The fact that the applicant married quickly was not a basis to doubt the genuineness of the marriage. Although the applicant had misrepresented the period of inadmissibility of two years from the date of refusal had expired by the time of the appeal and the tribunal erred in concluding she was still inadmissible on that ground.

The Appeal Division found that the child of the Appellant was a sponsor despite the fact that she had interupted her studies

The Court held that when assessing dependency of a child over 22 who is studying, if there is an interruption in the studies, the tribunal must consider the reasons behind it. Note the Court of Appeal set aside the decision but did not disagree with the legal finding. This case has been applied since by the Appeal Division see Linn v Canada 2009 IADD 88

The Court set aside a decision of the Appeal Division upholding a decision that the sponsor was ineligible to sponsor due to convictions pursuant to section 133 (1) (e) (ii) holding that the findings of fact were unreasonable.