financial support stigma

[KarlR]

hey all,


I just have a question about the financial support part of the sponsorship application.

now,just to clear things things up,we have already applied for this application and my sponsor had no problem with signing the part about financially supporting me.

anyways,this has always been apart of the application that has bothered me as when we were first talking about applying,everything was fine,except for a relative of my sponsor who said it wasnt a good idea for her to go through with it,because of this one rule.

from his perspective,if my myself and my sponsors relationship broke down at all during the first two years,then she would have to support me financially.so in other words,as soon as my sponsership came through,i could dump my partner,move away (the relationship therefore being ended) but she would have to pay me money to support me.
Now i know this cant be true,because

(1) even if our relationship breaks down,my sponsor has only to report this to CIC and my conditional PR will be taken away and I will have to leave Canada.

(2)As much as some people like to think,Canada does not support and give favour to Immigrants over citizens.

So what he said was that he "knew someone" who had gone through this process,who after being sponsored,turned around and said to their sponsor that the whole thing was a scam,and then got to sit on their ass for two years while their sponsor was legally forced to pay for the applicant to live in Canada.


Now,I know this cant be true.But what im wondering,is if anyone could clear up the "financially support" part of the application?what exactly does that mean?

I just want to know what to say next time someone throws this rule at me...

(As a side note,I once asked a Canadian employer if he would be interested in sponsoring me,to which he said "No" because in his words "I think if the company sponsors you an you go stab someone,the company goes to court for murder and you get away with it"....what a moron...

Anyways,just wondering if someone can clear that up for me...thanks!

 

[scylla]

Not everyone falls under Condition 51. If a couple have been in a relationship long enough or have children together, Condition 51 won't apply. In that event, if for some reason the sponsored spouse goes on social assistance / welfare, the sponsor will be responsible for paying all of this money back to the government. This can be a fairly significant amount. Once in a while we will have someone post on this forum who is in this exact situation and who is asking how they can get out of repaying the Canadian government because of the amount of money they now owe. The short answer is that they can't. They agreed to financially support their spouse when they signed the PR application.

As for Condition 51, yes, technically if your relationship falls apart then your spouse can effectively cancel your PR. However if you end up taking social assistance before you have your PR revoked and are forced to leave Canada, my bet is that your sponsor will still be responsible for repaying this money to Canada.

So the short answer is yes, your sponsor is financially responsible for you. If you go on social assistance within the first two years of landing, your sponsor will have to pay this money back. Condition 51 doesn't change this.

 

[Kayaker]

What the relative of your sponsor said may have been true if the applicant didn't have Condition 51. It's a fairly new rule, so until recently, you Could dump your sponsor as soon as you got PR but your sponsor would still be liable to pay back Canada if the new PR-holder claimed welfare. Actually, you can still do this if you've been married for over 2 years or have kids together.

There are two different liabilities here: welfare, and spousal support. If you get officially separated, I don't think the sponsor needs to pay spousal support, because that person isn't their spouse (or partner) anymore. However, if the PR-holder claims social assistance, the sponsor still needs to pay that money back to the state. If you're not officially separated, I guess the sponsor still has to pay for their partner until their divorce is official. But it takes a court to mandate that, I guess.

With Condition 51 in effect, the sponsor could report the breakdown of the relationship to CIC (if it takes place within 2 years) and have the PR taken away, and the applicant has to leave Canada, thereby becoming unable to claim welfare from Canada. (Obviously, the sponsor is not liable for welfare the applicant claims from any other government.) The sponsorship undertaking is for 3 years, however, so if I left my husband after 24 months, he cannot get CIC to cancel my PR, and he will still have to pay back the government if I claim welfare.

 

[scylla]

That's a good point. The financial obligation is three years. So even with Conditional PR - that still leaves an extra year where the financial obligation is in place but Condition 51 no longer is.

 

[KarlR]

ok,thats crazy!

so from what i understand,a sponsor takes on the burden(for want of a better word!) for the first three years of comonlaw,but if things break own between then and the applicant claims welfare,then the sponsor is responsible?

heres a question,what if the applicant as a lot of assets?surely the sponsor is entitled to half of these assets if the relationship breaks down,as is the same with any commonlaw relationship?

 

[scylla]

Correct - if the applicant goes on welfare within the first three years of landing - the applicant is responsible for paying all of this money back. Agreeing to sponsor someone is a serious undertaking. Having the financial obligation in place helps to prevent abuse.

The fact the applicant has assets is a completely independent matter. In the event of a divorce, the sponsor may or may not be entitled to half of these assets. This would depend on a number of factors and would be decided through family law.

The immigration law is entirely focused on social assistance / welfare. Again, if the applicant goes on it for any reason within the first three years (even if the relationship is still fine) - the applicant must pay it back.

 

[KarlR]

Thanks for all the awnsers!it probably looks like I'm trying to figure this all out because it's my real plan!haha

It just bugs me that someone who dosnt even know me suggested that this could be what I'm doing!

Seriously,why would I bother going through this whole process and lie to my sponsor for years,just to be able to claim welfare?!
So by going through this process,my sponsor will be entitled to half of my assets if our relationship breaks down and she wanted to go to court?
So why the hell would I bother going through all of this,put half my assets at risk,all to be able to go on welfare?!

Also,since I have worked in Canada for a couple of years,wouldnt i techincally have ei to claim before welfare even came into things?not really sure how that works.


So from what I gather,the under taking is three years,but conditional PR is two.So,during the first two years,if I left my spouse and went on welfare,all she would need to do is call CIC and inform them that the relationship is no longer,and I would then lose my PR and have to leave Canada.
So she is really only at risk of being scammed in the third year of the undertaking,when conditional PR has expired?

That's a good point. The financial obligation is three years. So even with Conditional PR - that still leaves an extra year where the financial obligation is in place but Condition 51 no longer is.

 

[rhcohen2014]

Thanks for all the awnsers!it probably looks like I'm trying to figure this all out because it's my real plan!haha

It just bugs me that someone who dosnt even know me suggested that this could be what I'm doing!

Seriously,why would I bother going through this whole process and lie to my sponsor for years,just to be able to claim welfare?!
So by going through this process,my sponsor will be entitled to half of my assets if our relationship breaks down and she wanted to go to court?
So why the hell would I bother going through all of this,put half my assets at risk,all to be able to go on welfare?!

i don't understand what's so confusing or upsetting about this. this isn't personally directed at just YOU. this law came about because of the amount of fraud seen in family class immigration, and it's protecting canada and their citizens from scams. just because you have honest intent doesn't mean everyone does, or has.

it is what it is. there's no way around it, and really shouldn't be a problem for relationships that are true and ongoing. if for some reason the relationship broke down prior to the condition lifting, then i would think it's the applicant's moral responsiblity to either return to their home country where they may have better support, or not put their sponsor in a position where their sponsor will need to pay back government funds. it's the risk the sponsor takes for sponsoring their spouse, and that is why they make you sign the declaration upfront, so you understand what an undertaking entails.

it seems pretty straightforward and "fair" to me. if there's concern about needing to pay the government back for welfare, then don't apply for spousal sponsorship.

 

[Kayaker]

I think the OP was talking about a certain relative of his spouse - who said she shouldn't sponsor her husband because of being on the hook for 3 years. He seems mostly concerned about outsiders giving him and his spouse grief for taking such a huge risk on each other

To the OP - just tell them to get a life! Anyway, such people just want to find excuses to criticize other people - if not this, they'll find something else to criticize you for.

 

[scylla]

So by going through this process,my sponsor will be entitled to half of my assets if our relationship breaks down and she wanted to go to court?

I know this isn't what you're arguing - but just as an FYI so that you know what the laws are, since you are common law, whether your spouse gets anything depends on your province. In some provinces when a common law relationship breaks up each person gets what's in their name. It's not like divorce where once spouse may be entitled to half of the assets of the other.

 

[rhcohen2014]

I think the OP was talking about a certain relative of his spouse - who said she shouldn't sponsor her husband because of being on the hook for 3 years. He seems mostly concerned about outsiders giving him and his spouse grief for taking such a huge risk on each other

To the OP - just tell them to get a life! Anyway, such people just want to find excuses to criticize other people - if not this, they'll find something else to criticize you for.

well then, yeah, tell them to shut it! it's none of their business. generally, when other people keep saying "no, no, no" for something that betters someone else's life, it means it's the right decision to say "yes" to it! it's human nature for others to point out the risk of failure for something they wouldn't have the guts to do themselves. think about all those successful people out there who kept going even though everyone else said to stop.

 

[AMJ]

"never base your life decisions on advise from someone who don't have to deal with the results".

 

[rhcohen2014]

"never base your life decisions on advise from someone who don't have to deal with the results".

amen!

 

[keesio]

i don't understand what's so confusing or upsetting about this. this isn't personally directed at just YOU. this law came about because of the amount of fraud seen in family class immigration, and it's protecting canada and their citizens from scams. just because you have honest intent doesn't mean everyone does, or has.

Exactly. It's like getting upset at airport security for checking your bag when the reason why they do it is not because they think you are a criminal but because of the other real criminals that have tried to smuggle stuff over.