I do not read anywhere near all IAD decisions about misrepresentation, and many such cases do not get publicly reported, but at least since the peak of the Harper-Kenney initiative to go after fraud (beginning around 2009 or so) there has been a relatively steady stream of misrepresentation cases leading to the loss of PR status. The nature of the underlying misrepresentations vary considerably.Rob_TO said:
But I suspect the broader impact is in later processing. As I discuss below, it is glaringly obvious if the PNP PR makes little or no effort to settle in the sponsoring province, and this remains glaringly obvious in the PR's immigration history. So even if there is no fraud investigation leading to criminal prosecution or loss of status, there remains the prospect, down the road, that IRCC will approach the PR with heightened skepticism and suspicion . . . when the PR applies to sponsor a family member, applies for a new PR card or a PR TD from abroad, or applies for citizenship. This forum, like others, has had a tendency to focus on what will meet the technicalities, often the minimum technicalities, overlooking the extent to which a negative assessment of credibility can hurt or even totally sabotage the PR.
Topics here about Secondary Review, and the travails of those suffering it, amply illustrate the downside of being the subject of skepticism or suspicion. Of course most of those reporting and complaining about this, in this forum anyway, claim to be innocent, and perhaps many are little more than the victim of coincidence or unforuntate appearances. But those coming to Canada pursuant to a PNP program should be cognizant that not settling in the sponsoring province will make a rather distinct impression, and not a favourable one, but one that will stay with the PR's immigration history for at least a good while. The appearance will be they were scamming the system, even if they weren't.
In the meantime, while it appears there is no specific condition which is breached by failing to remain in the sponsoring province (no one has cited any here), Section 6 of the Charter of Rights does not prevent the government from imposing such a condition, if it chose to do so and went through the proper procedures for adopting a regulation or law to that effect.
I quoted selected parts for emphasis. This did not change the essential meaning.mf4361 said:
While the source you cite is just one other lawyer's opinion (not an official or even authoritative source), it happens to be an opinion I agree with in that it overtly acknowledges the government can and does impose restraints on the mobility of citizens as well as PRs, and the courts have generally upheld these as valid.
In particular, the mobility rights prescribed in Section 6 are not absolute. Which is to say a law which has the effect of restraining the mobility of Canadians is NOT necessarily unconstitutional or a violation of Charter Rights. It depends. If the government can articulate a need for the law and show it is designed to reasonably meet that need, it is likely to be upheld (as your source cites, the authority for this is Section 1 of the Charter, which overrides Section 6 and most of the rest of the Charter as well).
I am confident that a rationally based condition imposed for a reasonable duration would not be deemed a violation of the Charter. As I noted, this is actually an easy call since, as I also noted, Canadian immigration law already imposes and enforces a rather profound restraint on the mobility of some PRs, spousal sponsored PRs in particular . . . who must cohabit with their sponsor, the effect of which is that they must live where their sponsor lives, and thus cannot freely move to even any other apartment, let alone another city, let alone another province, for two years AFTER landing (only consequence, however, is loss of PR status).
And regarding this condition, there are scores of cases in which it has been enforced.
The point is that the government can impose reasonable conditions governing statutory grants of status even if the effect of those conditions impedes the mobility of a new immigrant. How strict or for how long may be, probably is, subject to some Charter-based assessment, but the government has the authority to impose reasonable conditions limiting the mobility of Canadians.
That said, as I acknowledged, I do not know what if any conditions are imposed on PNP PRs which would be breached by not settling in the sponsoring province. If there are any such conditions, they are almost certainly valid and enforceable. No one has come forward to cite any specific condition of this sort.
Thus, my impression is that there is no such condition. So the real and practical issue is to what extent the failure to settle in the sponsoring province could otherwise have a detrimental impact on the PNP PR. Thing is, if the PNP PR makes no more than a minimal effort to settle in the sponsoring province, this will be glaringly obvious in the PR's history. Even if the PR was not deliberately scamming the system, it will look like that was the plan. Not exactly the impression conscientious immigrants want to give their new government.
Some may think that unless the government takes immediate remedial action, there are no consequences. That is a mistake. Not for everyone who does this. But for many there is a real risk this could haunt or damage a future application, whether it is to sponsor a family member, apply for a new PR card or PR TD from abroad, or when applying for citizenship. The actual scope of the impact in a particular instance is beyond forecasting. But the range of possibilities is apparent: little or no impact at one end, investigation and potential prosecution for fraud at the other, with a variable impact on credibility in-between.
Not the best way to start a new life in a new country.
