Province is Ontario.
Visitor record: I will apply in a couple of month
Currently, my son is getting insurance from my employer for 3-4 months. After that, I will buy private health insurance for him.
Canadian PR Entry Concerns: Crossing Canada border with Family from Detroit USA without meeting Residency Obligation
- Thread starter familyman86
- Start date
Visitor record: I will apply in a couple of month
Currently, my son is getting insurance from my employer for 3-4 months. After that, I will buy private health insurance for him.
PR card expiry date rarely tied to health card expiry date. The exception may be for PR cards only issued for a short period of time if status is being appealed.
Well, I live in Ontario, and mine was tied. Granted, it's almost five years long - but there's a difference of a couple weeks so while not a big deal for me, it's noticable. (I.e. if it was exactly five years and not tied, my health card should be good for a few more weeks past the end of my PR card, not ending on the exact same day.)
You can renew your health card with proof of residency not a valid PR card so actually not a big deal. A PR card is a travel document not proof of residency. Was this your first PR card?
In fact, it was! I wonder if this is the key difference - though it sounded like for the OP, it was the first time for everything (like first PR card and first health card, etc).
Definitely not true for those who apply for the first time or who have previously applied and are renewing on temporary status/work permits. The first time they do ask for status (in addition to residency), and if using a work permit - which are only for a few years max - the validity is the same, you're definitely not getting the five years validity on the health card with a work permit.
That said I had renewed OHIP before (several times by this point) when I went to renew for the latest (which was when I present PR instead of a work permit), so could being on a temporary status with OHIP formerly be the difference?
If you have established a relationship with an immigration lawyer, at least to the extent you have paid a lawyer to give you advice based on a detailed review of your particular situation (thus more than a free consultation), the lawyer would be a far, far better source of "input" about engaging in any transactions with IRCC . . . and until you are in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation it would be a good idea to turn to the lawyer for information and advice before engaging in any transactions with IRCC . . . or, at the least, get a lawyer's input until you have fully established a long-term residence here (the longer the better; in effect showing you are permanently settled here not just intending to settle here) and are quite certain there are no inadmissibility proceedings in process.
The latter, a fair degree of certainty that there are no inadmissibility proceedings in process, is important since you also say that "So far not received anything from IRCC related to IRPA28," it appears there is still no disposition or resolution in regards to . . .
Apart from saying one lawyer advised that you do not need to take any additional action beyond staying, and maintaining your documentation relevant to living and working here, you do not say what the lawyer said or advised in regards to what you were informed during the PoE examination, about being "issued IRPA28." Unless the lawyer more or less definitively said there is no pending inadmissibility proceeding, in effect confidently assuring you that there is no reason to anticipate any "need to give additional interview," as the PoE officers described, it would be prudent to assume there may be a 44(1) Report outstanding (unresolved) and that you may still need to give an "additional interview."
That is, it is still a good idea to be prepared to be contacted by an immigration officer, to be interviewed, and for that interview be prepared to state the case why you should be allowed to keep your PR status (which might not be a complicated thing; could be as simple as saying the plan to settle here permanently was delayed longer than anticipated, but you got here when you could and you are here to stay now), UNLESS, attendant getting advice you paid for, a lawyer assured you there is no 44(1) Report outstanding. The longer it goes, the longer you stay and the more established you are here, the better your odds of a favourable outcome even if there is a 44(1) Report outstanding (which would mean that technically you are not accumulating credit toward meeting the RO). Note: I cannot say for sure (based on what you have shared), but unless a lawyer has gone over your particular circumstances in detail and said otherwise, this still appears likely to be the situation (this is not intended to ring alarm bells; again, the more established you are here the better your odds it will go OK).
Application For Visitor Record For Child In Particular . . .
That it is better to obtain input from a retained (paid) lawyer probably applies to an application for "a Visitor Record" for a child, again, even though it seems unlikely (perhaps very unlikely) that this would trigger a RO compliance examination for a parent in breach of the RO. In regards to the risk, in particular, if that application process does not involve submitting parent-PR information that discloses extent of time outside Canada (directly or indirectly, comparable to the information likely disclosed in a sponsorship application), there should be very little risk of triggering an RO compliance examination for the parent-PR.
But there may be other factors to consider in deciding whether that is the prudent way to go. By the way, if it makes any difference . . . my understanding is that rather than an application for a VR, technically you are referring to an application to extend visitor status, expecting IRCC to issue a VR which in effect will extend the child's temporary resident status as a visitor.
In terms of risks, again, for a parent in breach of the RO, there may be some risk depending on what information is given in the application, including in particular the extent to which the application includes information overtly revealing the parent-PR's history indicates a RO breach.
Observation Re Risk Of Sponsorship Application:
The reason why it is risky for a PR in breach of the RO to make a sponsorship application is that the sponsoring PR must include information in the application that can reveal details in their history overtly indicating the PR is not in compliance with the RO. Unlike a PR card or PRTD application, which inherently involve a RO compliance assessment, the application to sponsor a family member's PR does not necessarily invoke assessing RO compliance, just verification of the sponsor's PR status. But when information in the sponsorship application indicates, on its face, the sponsoring PR is likely in breach of the RO, that can trigger questioning potentially leading to inadmissibility proceedings (the preparation of a 44(1) Report followed by an interview with a Minister's Delegate).
The risk is somewhat similar to what a returning PR in RO breach faces when arriving at a PoE, noting that screening returning PRs typically does NOT involve RO compliance questioning let alone an overt RO compliance examination. The risk RO compliance is even considered depends on the extent to which circumstances cause PoE officials to have concerns about the returning PR's RO compliance. Common triggers include having no valid PR card (generally land border entries), or for those with a valid PR card, arriving here after a lengthy absence, especially an absence of years, and noting that arriving in Canada more than three years since leaving indicates, on its face (no arithmetic or even counting necessary), there is a RO breach unless the PR can show they qualify for an exception.
Health care coverage . . . health card . . . tangent . . .
Echo response by @canuck78 . . . moreover, since PR status does not expire (can be terminated but it does not expire), there is no functional correlation between the date a PR card expires (having no effect on continuing validity of PR status) and qualifying for provincial health care coverage.
It is more likely both cards were issued as of the same date (however that happened), such that both would expire exactly the same date in five years. It is not that the health card's expiration date is tied to the PR card's expiration date, but rather both would expire five years from the date they were issued. (Or it could have been an anomaly, noting that provincial health care is a bureaucracy as is Canadian immigration, and bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does . . . which means there are, on occasion, anomalies.)
Note, in particular, that Ontario will accept an expired PR card (expired by no more than five years) as sufficient proof of OHIP-eligible immigration status, so obviously OHIP does not tie the expiration date of the OHIP card to the date the PR card expires.
How it works may be different for non-Canadians, that is for Foreign Nationals (FNs) who only have temporary immigration status which expires when their visa or permit expires (unless they have taken appropriate steps to continue their temporary status here).
For Canadians (whether PRs or citizens), their immigration status in Canada does not expire, and in particular the expiration date of the PR card does not affect the individual's immigration status (they are still a Canadian, a PR, even though their PR card has expired).
By the way, the expiration of the health card does not terminate a resident's eligibility for health care coverage either (even though it can preclude getting health care without presenting proof of coverage, not unlike PRs being denied boarding for a flight to Canada, even though they have valid PR status, if they do not present a valid PR card).
Not likely a key difference.
Again, there could be a coincidence as to the date both were issued (if issued as of the same date, they will of course expire the same date in five years), or some provinces may correlate date of issuance (which in turn will make expiration dates the same) when the new PR already had provincial health care coverage as a temporary resident (this probably depends on how the particular province processes issuing health care cards when someone with existing coverage, pursuant to temporary status, becomes a PR).
Small quibble with @canuck78: the PR card is NOT a travel document, it is a status document, and when used attendant travel it must accompany a travel document (passport for most travelers; refugees with PR status need a Refugee Travel Document).
Otherwise, what is required when applying for health care coverage the first time may be more strict in some provinces. Renewals can be different.
At least for Canadians (PRs and citizens), OHIP generally does not ask for documentation of immigration status to renew the OHIP card, although it does require the client to declare if there has been any change in immigration status (and if there has been, provide documentation as prescribed). Note that after an initial period of coverage, for Canadians with a drivers license OHIP will generally issue a new OHIP card to expire on the client's birth date the same year the drivers license expires. While the date of expiration for a drivers license and OHIP card may be tied, in this way, OHIP coverage does not expire or terminate when the OHIP card expires. In contrast, if one fails to renew their drivers license, allowing it to expire, they are no longer licensed to drive after it has expired.
Most provinces (probably all), require proof of immigration status when making an initial application for health coverage. What documentation will suffice can vary from province to province. Horror stories related in anecdotal reporting tend to involve B.C., Alberta, or Quebec, which seem to have stricter requirements. In contrast, Ontario appears to be more flexible than some other provinces. As noted, for example, Ontario will accept a PR card that is expired (as long as it expired within the previous five years).
Note re my experience (FWIW, recognizing what can be inferred from individual experience is limited): I have been a Canadian for more than 17 years now and have renewed OHIP at least four times. I have never presented a PR card. I presented my CoPR when I initially applied for OHIP, and after that I was not asked for and did not present proof of immigration status when renewing the card . . . that is until last year. Last year, in the notice for renewal I saw the requirement to notify OHIP (ServiceOntario) of any change in immigration status, so it was not until last year that I presented proof of citizenship when I did the renewal. (I had renewed my OHIP card at least once while still a PR, and twice before last year but after becoming a citizen back in 2014, again without showing any proof of immigration status).
Echo response by @canuck78 . . . moreover, since PR status does not expire (can be terminated but it does not expire), there is no functional correlation between the date a PR card expires (having no effect on continuing validity of PR status) and qualifying for provincial health care coverage.
It is more likely both cards were issued as of the same date (however that happened), such that both would expire exactly the same date in five years. It is not that the health card's expiration date is tied to the PR card's expiration date, but rather both would expire five years from the date they were issued. (Or it could have been an anomaly, noting that provincial health care is a bureaucracy as is Canadian immigration, and bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does . . . which means there are, on occasion, anomalies.)
Note, in particular, that Ontario will accept an expired PR card (expired by no more than five years) as sufficient proof of OHIP-eligible immigration status, so obviously OHIP does not tie the expiration date of the OHIP card to the date the PR card expires.
How it works may be different for non-Canadians, that is for Foreign Nationals (FNs) who only have temporary immigration status which expires when their visa or permit expires (unless they have taken appropriate steps to continue their temporary status here).
For Canadians (whether PRs or citizens), their immigration status in Canada does not expire, and in particular the expiration date of the PR card does not affect the individual's immigration status (they are still a Canadian, a PR, even though their PR card has expired).
By the way, the expiration of the health card does not terminate a resident's eligibility for health care coverage either (even though it can preclude getting health care without presenting proof of coverage, not unlike PRs being denied boarding for a flight to Canada, even though they have valid PR status, if they do not present a valid PR card).
Not likely a key difference.
Again, there could be a coincidence as to the date both were issued (if issued as of the same date, they will of course expire the same date in five years), or some provinces may correlate date of issuance (which in turn will make expiration dates the same) when the new PR already had provincial health care coverage as a temporary resident (this probably depends on how the particular province processes issuing health care cards when someone with existing coverage, pursuant to temporary status, becomes a PR).
Small quibble with @canuck78: the PR card is NOT a travel document, it is a status document, and when used attendant travel it must accompany a travel document (passport for most travelers; refugees with PR status need a Refugee Travel Document).
Otherwise, what is required when applying for health care coverage the first time may be more strict in some provinces. Renewals can be different.
At least for Canadians (PRs and citizens), OHIP generally does not ask for documentation of immigration status to renew the OHIP card, although it does require the client to declare if there has been any change in immigration status (and if there has been, provide documentation as prescribed). Note that after an initial period of coverage, for Canadians with a drivers license OHIP will generally issue a new OHIP card to expire on the client's birth date the same year the drivers license expires. While the date of expiration for a drivers license and OHIP card may be tied, in this way, OHIP coverage does not expire or terminate when the OHIP card expires. In contrast, if one fails to renew their drivers license, allowing it to expire, they are no longer licensed to drive after it has expired.
Most provinces (probably all), require proof of immigration status when making an initial application for health coverage. What documentation will suffice can vary from province to province. Horror stories related in anecdotal reporting tend to involve B.C., Alberta, or Quebec, which seem to have stricter requirements. In contrast, Ontario appears to be more flexible than some other provinces. As noted, for example, Ontario will accept a PR card that is expired (as long as it expired within the previous five years).
Note re my experience (FWIW, recognizing what can be inferred from individual experience is limited): I have been a Canadian for more than 17 years now and have renewed OHIP at least four times. I have never presented a PR card. I presented my CoPR when I initially applied for OHIP, and after that I was not asked for and did not present proof of immigration status when renewing the card . . . that is until last year. Last year, in the notice for renewal I saw the requirement to notify OHIP (ServiceOntario) of any change in immigration status, so it was not until last year that I presented proof of citizenship when I did the renewal. (I had renewed my OHIP card at least once while still a PR, and twice before last year but after becoming a citizen back in 2014, again without showing any proof of immigration status).
Another Tangent . . .
If it is determined you are in breach of the RO and there are sufficient H&C considerations to allow you to keep your PR status, it should be safe to proceed with a new PR card application (still clearly request H&C relief in the application and follow the instructions for presenting supporting evidence for H&C relief in particular). HOWEVER, the distinction @armoured describes is an important one. Being waived through without being questioned about RO compliance, or being waived through in an exercise of discretion, officers deliberately being lenient or lax or otherwise, even if asked some RO compliance related questions, does not constitute an adjudication of your status, and would not be a determination that for H&C reasons you are allowed to retain PR status despite the RO breach.
If you need certainty about your status, or something close to certainty, you can make an application for a PR TD and explicitly present your H&C case in the application. If your travel history shows you are not in compliance with the RO, and you are granted a PR TD, it should be OK to proceed with making a PR card application after you have settled in Canada (settled to stay). This is safer if the PR TD is coded RC-1, but if it is clear in your PR TD application you are in breach and that you are relying on H&C reasons, and a PR TD is granted, as long as you get here and settle here, and wait to make the PR card application after it is clear, factually, that you are settled here to stay, it should be OK.
In contrast . . . Many in your situation are hoping to get waived through the PoE without a RO compliance examination. If waived through, and if they can then stay long enough to get into RO compliance before they need a PR card, the safe approach is to not make the PR card application until they have stayed long enough be in compliance with the RO.
Another approach would be to be very upfront about being in breach of the RO when going through the PoE screening, more or less asking officers to proceed with the formalities of inadmissibility proceedings, such that a 44(1) inadmissibility report is prepared and you get the opportunity to make the H&C case to an officer acting in the role of a Minister's Delegate. That does not guarantee they will adjudicate your status; they might still just waive you through, perhaps advise you to make a PR card application soon (which does not mean you have to do that).
There are occasions, even if inadmissibility proceedings are initiated in the PoE, when things are not resolved then and there at the PoE (which appears to be the case for the OP here).
Generally, if a Report is prepared, the process should result in either a Removal Order which you can appeal (and obtain a one-year PR card pending the appeal, which however may take nearly as long to get as it takes for the appeal to be decided) or the Report being set aside for H&C reasons. The latter is precisely a determination that you should be allowed to keep PR status despite the breach, a decision which means it would be OK to proceed with a PR card application once you have in fact actually settled here to stay. But again, the distinction @armoured discussed in this regard is important, and based on anecdotal reporting it seems that border officials often are not clear about what they are doing, and it can be difficult for some to discern whether there has been a formal adjudication of status resulting in a positive H&C decision as a matter of record, or they just benefitted from being waived through.
There are additional nuances worth considering in your situation, but you should start your own topic if you want to pursue discussion of your situation further.
If it is determined you are in breach of the RO and there are sufficient H&C considerations to allow you to keep your PR status, it should be safe to proceed with a new PR card application (still clearly request H&C relief in the application and follow the instructions for presenting supporting evidence for H&C relief in particular). HOWEVER, the distinction @armoured describes is an important one. Being waived through without being questioned about RO compliance, or being waived through in an exercise of discretion, officers deliberately being lenient or lax or otherwise, even if asked some RO compliance related questions, does not constitute an adjudication of your status, and would not be a determination that for H&C reasons you are allowed to retain PR status despite the RO breach.
If you need certainty about your status, or something close to certainty, you can make an application for a PR TD and explicitly present your H&C case in the application. If your travel history shows you are not in compliance with the RO, and you are granted a PR TD, it should be OK to proceed with making a PR card application after you have settled in Canada (settled to stay). This is safer if the PR TD is coded RC-1, but if it is clear in your PR TD application you are in breach and that you are relying on H&C reasons, and a PR TD is granted, as long as you get here and settle here, and wait to make the PR card application after it is clear, factually, that you are settled here to stay, it should be OK.
In contrast . . . Many in your situation are hoping to get waived through the PoE without a RO compliance examination. If waived through, and if they can then stay long enough to get into RO compliance before they need a PR card, the safe approach is to not make the PR card application until they have stayed long enough be in compliance with the RO.
Another approach would be to be very upfront about being in breach of the RO when going through the PoE screening, more or less asking officers to proceed with the formalities of inadmissibility proceedings, such that a 44(1) inadmissibility report is prepared and you get the opportunity to make the H&C case to an officer acting in the role of a Minister's Delegate. That does not guarantee they will adjudicate your status; they might still just waive you through, perhaps advise you to make a PR card application soon (which does not mean you have to do that).
There are occasions, even if inadmissibility proceedings are initiated in the PoE, when things are not resolved then and there at the PoE (which appears to be the case for the OP here).
Generally, if a Report is prepared, the process should result in either a Removal Order which you can appeal (and obtain a one-year PR card pending the appeal, which however may take nearly as long to get as it takes for the appeal to be decided) or the Report being set aside for H&C reasons. The latter is precisely a determination that you should be allowed to keep PR status despite the breach, a decision which means it would be OK to proceed with a PR card application once you have in fact actually settled here to stay. But again, the distinction @armoured discussed in this regard is important, and based on anecdotal reporting it seems that border officials often are not clear about what they are doing, and it can be difficult for some to discern whether there has been a formal adjudication of status resulting in a positive H&C decision as a matter of record, or they just benefitted from being waived through.
There are additional nuances worth considering in your situation, but you should start your own topic if you want to pursue discussion of your situation further.
Definitely not, unless the OHIP is somehow slightly shorter than exactly five years. Both came in by mail but I waited until I had my PR card in hand (and I actually had it routed elsewhere since I was in the middle of moving and only received it a few weeks after it officially landed).
But I waited until I had my PR card physically in hand to renew my OHIP card (which actually had some time until it expired due to the length of my last work permit).
What you're saying makes more sense - it would be very strange for them to tie OHIP to the expiry of a PR card on one hand and then accept that same expired PR card as proof for coverage on the other hand.
I'm willing to say that I got led astray by a one-off anomaly that personally happened to me and came to the wrong conclusion earlier, so thank you both for the correction.
Hmm interesting. I wonder if that's what happened in my case: the FN -> PR route caused a correlation on date of issuance in Ontario that doesn't apply to already-PR OHIP renewals or to first time OHIP for folks entering Canada as newly minted PRs.