Sponsors of rouge immigrants must repay welfare money

[ipevo]

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of federal and provincial governments to collect social-service payments from the sponsors of immigrants. The landmark ruling involves the cases of eight Ontario immigrant families that sponsored relatives from abroad, and who later went on social assistance.

Read more http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2011/06/sponsors-of-rogue-canadian-immigrants-must-repay-welfare-money/

[CharlieD10]

As rightly they should.  That is why there is a sponsorship contract, so that everyone is aware of their obligations.  If the government was to simply forgive the debts, the whole point of having a sponsorship contract would be lost.  Family class sponsorships would be viewed even more negatively than they already are.

[pinklady]

I think thats the right decision.

[ipevo]

Have to agree it's the right decision

[Boracay]

I also agree for the most part, however I think there should be some exceptional circumstances clause.

For example theoretically, lets say a woman sponsors her husband and after 1 year he decides to cheat on her and run away with another woman, and then that breaks down and he goes on social assistance.
Unlikely in most relationships but I'm sure it happens.

Imagine the woman needing to support him after all that. Sure she signed a contract, regardless of circumstances if they split up, divorce, lose job etc....but I guess there's always a few exceptional cases.....no?

That being said I would mostly agree, just playing devils advocate!

[pinklady]

I dunno, sponsoring someone is a serious commitment, if you don't think your relationship is secure enough then you shouldnt sponsor. You need to trust your partner and if they break the contract then thats a shame, but a contract it was and you need to honour it.

[Boracay]

yup that's true and I'm sure the last thing Canada immigration wants to do is get involved in peoples sob stories and about how they were wronged and how they were a special case regardless if it's true or not.

Would suck though if that situation happened to someone and it likely has!

[pinklady]

Yeah it would definitely suck! And i'm not saying I don't have sympathy for people who have things like that happen. Its obviously bad.
But the situation is what it is!

Are the rules the same if your partner who sponsors you dies? I suppose they are. There would be nothing stopping people going back to their home country if they could no longer support themselves here. Hmmm interesting!

[dair2dv8103100]

I totally agree with the ruling (and I am the sponsor) because if there is one exception made then where do the exceptions stop?

Besides the government is not saying it won't take into consideration payment options. Just that it must still be paid no matter the circumstances of the break up of the relationship.

Agreed that some situations are terrible but just like a bank does not care if or how you break up neither does the government. You still have to pay them back.

[dair2dv8103100]

Are the rules the same if your partner who sponsors you dies? I suppose they are. There would be nothing stopping people going back to their home country if they could no longer support themselves here. Hmmm interesting!

Now that would be an interesting situation...although if they went back to there home country then they are not going to receive benefits here anyway...well...assuming they are honest about it and not giving benefits to another relative here to deposit into their bank account...then again there is supposed to be 3 month follow ups for welfare recipients and they have to physically show up for the appt...

LOL...the if's really are innumerable

[awor]

I totally agree with this. Sponsors need to be as sure as they can (not just hopeful, but SURE) that their marriage/relationship is going to make it, long term/forever. They need to care so much about their partner that they will be willing to support them for years even if it breaks down.

[rjessome]

I agree that the courts are not the place for this to be changed if it is changed at all.  It should be a legislative decision.  I would like to see a welfare application trigger an investigation of Marriage of Convenience in the case of spousal/CL sponsorships.

[tink23]

In the casees of a spouse simply taking off once they arrived because they never planned on staying with their spouse, there should be more done to get them deported, as they obviously commited fraud. However I guess when the conditional residency is put in place, that will help with the matter of a lying, fraudulent spouse.

[tink23]

Question: is the sponsor able to file for social assistance within the time of their undertaking? (3 years once the applicant lands) or since they're married, they're considered one in the same?

For example: The sponsor loses his/her job within the 3 year timeframe. Can he/she apply for EI? The applicant cannot, correct? but can the sponsor?
Is employment insurance considered the same as welfare for social assistance?

[Stumpedmom]

Employment Insurance in not considered social assistance....they are referring to welfare support...