No businesses

[Hummingbird89]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/updates/2023-assessing-home-child-care-support-pilot.html

The second bullet says the employer can't be a business. Does that mean you can't use an agency that sends one HSW out to work with one person in their home? What if the person needing care has Alzheimer's and can't set up a business and do all that is required for payroll, etc.? This is crazy that it's retroactive.

 

[scylla]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/updates/2023-assessing-home-child-care-support-pilot.html

The second bullet says the employer can't be a business. Does that mean you can't use an agency that sends one HSW out to work with one person in their home?

Yes, that's what it means.

But this isn't a new rule as far as I'm aware. All they have done is clarified the wording around this rule. That rule has always been in place from my understanding of the program.

 

[Hummingbird89]

Yes, that's what it means.

But this isn't a new rule as far as I'm aware. All they have done is clarified the wording around this rule. That rule has always been in place from my understanding of the program.

What they had was no high commissions, embassies, consulates or a particular set of businesses from subparagrpah 200(3)(h)(i) to (iii). On the public site, all they put was no high commissions, embassies or consulates. They never had anything else and now, as of this month, you see no businesses. Yet they want you to get a business number.

How do they expect elderly Alzheimer's sufferers to arrange these types of things especially if they have no family?

 

[scylla]

What they had was no high commissions, embassies, consulates or a particular set of businesses from subparagrpah 200(3)(h)(i) to (iii). On the public site, all they put was no high commissions, embassies or consulates. They never had anything else and now, as of this month, you see no businesses. Yet they want you to get a business number.

How do they expect elderly Alzheimer's sufferers to arrange these types of things especially if they have no family?

There was additional language around the program being for individual employers in the old verion. IMO this rule wasn't well written and that's why they've clarified it now. However the intent was always for this to be for individual employers (i.e. not agencies or anything else of that nature). The recent update was stated as a clarification by IRCC and not as a new rule or change.

Anyway, I'm not IRCC. So I really can't comment further, other than to say that my understanding is that this has always been the rule and nothing has changed.

 

[Hummingbird89]

There was additional language around the program being for individual employers in the old verion. IMO this rule wasn't well written and that's why they've clarified it now. However the intent was always for this to be for individual employers (i.e. not agencies or anything else of that nature). The recent update was stated as a clarification by IRCC and not as a new rule or change.

Anyway, I'm not IRCC. So I really can't comment further, other than to say that my understanding is that this has always been the rule and nothing has changed.

I see. I know someone in one of these groups/forums/Telegram chats called IRCC directly and they told her that agencies were fine. Mind you, this may have been right before April 30, 2023.

 

[scylla]

I see. I know someone in one of these groups/forums/Telegram chats called IRCC directly and they told her that agencies were fine. Mind you, this may have been right before April 30, 2023.

You can't place any real relaince on what the IRCC help desk says (apart from basic questions and some limited application status questions). They aren't that good unfortunately and answer stuff wrong relatively frequently when the question is more complex (sometimes they even get simpler questions wrong). This is a more complex question. I personally wouldn't place any value on what they've said on this particular issue. And yes, it's sad they are this useless, but it is what it is.

I'm pretty sure we've already had at least two (maybe more?) refusals and / or PFLs on this forum related to having agencies as employers and IRCC not accepting this.

Anyway, I'm not sure I have much else to add to this conversation. I thought it was well known that employers had to be individuals (not companies, or agencies, or nursing homes) since the "individual employer" terminology was used under the old version of the rules.

 

[mr.preetsingh]

The employer can't be an agency, it's clear since 2019 when HCCP/HSWP programs started. IRCC has denied/refused/returned many applications whose employers were agencies since then.

 

[scylla]

The employer can't be an agency, it's clear since 2019 when HCCP/HSWP programs started. IRCC has denied/refused/returned many applications whose employers were agencies since then.

Thanks for confirming. That's what I thought as well.

 

[Hummingbird89]

The employer can't be an agency, it's clear since 2019 when HCCP/HSWP programs started. IRCC has denied/refused/returned many applications whose employers were agencies since then.

That's interesting. Do you have any screenshots? Are they rejecting agencies with door-to-door caregivers and retirement homes mainly or?

 

[mr.preetsingh]

That's interesting. Do you have any screenshots? Are they rejecting agencies with door-to-door caregivers and retirement homes mainly or?

It's clear here.

Where applicants do not have 12 months of eligible Canadian work experience at the time of their initial application for permanent residence (nor before an OROWP is issued – refer to the exemption), they must demonstrate that they have obtained a job offer which they are likely to accept that is

• from a single Canadian employer
  • The employer cannot be a business, but rather must be a private individual(s) seeking to address their in-home care needs
  • The employer cannot be an embassy, high commission or consulate in Canada.
  • Although not a business, the employer is required to obtain a CRA business number
  • The employer can include more than one individual (for example, Pat Smith and Jamie Brown), but must constitute 1 single employer (that is, 1 single CRA business number)
• for a position outside the province of Quebec
• for full-time employment (full time means at least 30 hours of paid work per week)
• non-seasonal
• in a home child care provider or home support worker occupation
• genuine and likely to be valid when the applicant is issued the initial OROWP

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/economic-classes/pathways-for-caregivers/child-care-provider-support-pilots/assessing-application-selection-criteria.html#job-offer

 

[Hummingbird89]

It's clear here.

Where applicants do not have 12 months of eligible Canadian work experience at the time of their initial application for permanent residence (nor before an OROWP is issued – refer to the exemption), they must demonstrate that they have obtained a job offer which they are likely to accept that is

• from a single Canadian employer
  • The employer cannot be a business, but rather must be a private individual(s) seeking to address their in-home care needs
  • The employer cannot be an embassy, high commission or consulate in Canada.
  • Although not a business, the employer is required to obtain a CRA business number
  • The employer can include more than one individual (for example, Pat Smith and Jamie Brown), but must constitute 1 single employer (that is, 1 single CRA business number)
• for a position outside the province of Quebec
• for full-time employment (full time means at least 30 hours of paid work per week)
• non-seasonal
• in a home child care provider or home support worker occupation
• genuine and likely to be valid when the applicant is issued the initial OROWP

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/economic-classes/pathways-for-caregivers/child-care-provider-support-pilots/assessing-application-selection-criteria.html#job-offer

In this entire post, I am referring to what it said before June 16 or April 30th. Many applications were sent in before this date, yet the decision criteria are retroactive. I know the page very well and it did not have that first bullet point.

 

[mr.preetsingh]

In this entire post, I am referring to what it said before June 16 or April 30th. Many applications were sent in before this date, yet the decision criteria are retroactive. I know the page very well and it did not have that first bullet point.

This is applicable since the very first day HCCP/HSWP started. Every RCIC knows this.

 

[Hummingbird89]

This is applicable since the very first day HCCP/HSWP started. Every RCIC knows this.

I went into the actual program law myself especially to find those subparagraphs and it never said anything like that.

 

[mr.preetsingh]

I went into the actual program law myself especially to find those subparagraphs and it never said anything like that.

Well, Try filing an application with the agency as an employer and let us know the outcome.

All the best.

 

[Hummingbird89]

If there is anyone out there in the caregiver pilot program that has been rejected due to having an agency in the place of employer, please respond to this thread. I have done a thorough search on Google with site:www.canadavisa.com as the tail and there have been zero discussions on this. Zero rejections noted in the forum here.
Thank you.