Spouse open work permit

[dhavalvasveliya]

Hi everyone,
I have submitted my wife's open work permit on August 23, 2020.I have valid open work permit and I have been working in a Company since June 6th 2020(NOC 0). My wife has a valid visitor visa and she is already in Canada.
For some reason I want to quit my job and work for another company (NOC C).
My question is will this affect my wife's application?
Thanks in advance.

 

[primaprime]

You generally need to be working in a skilled job for your spouse to be eligible for an OWP. Why do you want to take an NOC C job? Do you plan to apply for PR?

 

[canuck78]

Hi everyone,
I have submitted my wife's open work permit on August 23, 2020.I have valid open work permit and I have been working in a Company since June 6th 2020(NOC 0). My wife has a valid visitor visa and she is already in Canada.
For some reason I want to quit my job and work for another company (NOC C).
My question is will this affect my wife's application?
Thanks in advance.

You should not quit your job until your wife has her OWP which is likely to be months.

 

[GandiBaat]

Hi everyone,
I have submitted my wife's open work permit on August 23, 2020.I have valid open work permit and I have been working in a Company since June 6th 2020(NOC 0). My wife has a valid visitor visa and she is already in Canada.
For some reason I want to quit my job and work for another company (NOC C).
My question is will this affect my wife's application?
Thanks in advance.

The text of the law demands you to keep on working in a Noc A/B, there is no way around it. If you lose your job, you are obliged to to inform IRCC of the same via webform as it is change of circumstance.


Truth to be told, this is IRCC's failure. They insist that such law should be completely enforced but they are not able to process applications fast enough. neither they are able to provide an accurate processing time. On top of it they have closed the flag polling option. They should have relaxed the criteria via a public policy. That being said, they are slowly speeding up processing the online applications. They are already digging into few july applications. A month or two should bring this to August or Sept.

 

[canuck78]

The text of the law demands you to keep on working in a Noc A/B, there is no way around it. If you lose your job, you are obliged to to inform IRCC of the same via webform as it is change of circumstance.


Truth to be told, this is IRCC's failure. They insist that such law should be completely enforced but they are not able to process applications fast enough. neither they are able to provide an accurate processing time. On top of it they have closed the flag polling option. They should have relaxed the criteria via a public policy. That being said, they are slowly speeding up processing the online applications. They are already digging into few july applications. A month or two should bring this to August or Sept.

Think most countries or all their departments were not prepared for a pandemic. To be fair at least Canada has been allowing some travel and has opened up for more travel. Compared to a country like Australia that is not letting anyone with temporary permits or visas into the country. There are delays in everything.

 

[GandiBaat]

Think most countries or all their departments were not prepared for a pandemic. To be fair at least Canada has been allowing some travel and has opened up for more travel. Compared to a country like Australia that is not letting anyone with temporary permits or visas into the country. There are delays in everything.

Well, the basic questions comes to this : Is it fair to put a burden of eligibility that is way more than the reasonable and stipulated by the law? If a the requirement is just this much : You should be in a NOC A/B job when the decision is made, then putting an extra-burden of MAINTAINING that job for 6 months, purely because of processing delay seems unfair. At the very minimal a quasi-judiciary system (ie a system that judges, like canadian immigration deparment), is expected to be fair.

If Coronavirus is becoming a menace then its burden should not be put more on a poor soul whose only mistake was just that he applied at the wrong time. Hence a public policy in terms of how long a particular state -- ie having a job -- be maintained should be bounded and not indefinite, especially when it is not client's fault that IRCC cann't process fast enough.

From a pure business point of view, when you take a fee for something like a visa, there should be some expected service quality. IRCC has a habbit of introducing months of delay, at times arbitrarily in processing temporary visas. Even before this calamity hit, IRCC has been having a very weird kind of delays. Sometimes 3 months, sometimes 3 weeks.

If I look at the various other countries, then things are a bit different in different jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions tie condition of visa to the job directly making it risky for all applicants, not the luck ones who applied in correct time. Some judge their applicants based on the conditions that they were in when they submitted the application.

To be fair, such conditions --like having a Job-- should be checked at the point of application only NOT at a later point when the application is being processed after an arbitrary delay OR may be it should be perpetually checked : like USA does for its ICT visas.

 

[canuck78]

Well, the basic questions comes to this : Is it fair to put a burden of eligibility that is way more than the reasonable and stipulated by the law? If a the requirement is just this much : You should be in a NOC A/B job when the decision is made, then putting an extra-burden of MAINTAINING that job for 6 months, purely because of processing delay seems unfair. At the very minimal a quasi-judiciary system (ie a system that judges, like canadian immigration deparment), is expected to be fair.

If Coronavirus is becoming a menace then its burden should not be put more on a poor soul whose only mistake was just that he applied at the wrong time. Hence a public policy in terms of how long a particular state -- ie having a job -- be maintained should be bounded and not indefinite, especially when it is not client's fault that IRCC cann't process fast enough.

From a pure business point of view, when you take a fee for something like a visa, there should be some expected service quality. IRCC has a habbit of introducing months of delay, at times arbitrarily in processing temporary visas. Even before this calamity hit, IRCC has been having a very weird kind of delays. Sometimes 3 months, sometimes 3 weeks.

If I look at the various other countries, then things are a bit different in different jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions tie condition of visa to the job directly making it risky for all applicants, not the luck ones who applied in correct time. Some judge their applicants based on the conditions that they were in when they submitted the application.

To be fair, such conditions --like having a Job-- should be checked at the point of application only NOT at a later point when the application is being processed after an arbitrary delay OR may be it should be perpetually checked : like USA does for its ICT visas.

During a period with high job losses it makes perfect sense to keep verifying that a person still has their job. In general if a visa approval is based on someone's status it makes sense that the person is supposed to keep the status at least until the other visa/permit is approved. Taking a fee for something you are expecting a service. If Canada asked for much higher fees that covered all the costs related to providing a permit/visa then people could expect faster and better service. If people paid over and and above the cost of processing their applications then we could even get get even better service/

 

[GandiBaat]

During a period with high job losses it makes perfect sense to keep verifying that a person still has their job.

If the system is fair, then it should be done with everyone, not just with someone whose only "fault" was that he applied for his/her spouse's work permit renewal. Also, then it should be publicly disclosed as a policy and not as a hidden "feature" of the system. There are many things that make "perfect sense", till you see that it severely hurts the fairness of the system. As I said before, a system which by design unfairly disadvantages someone is broken. The basic law of justice is that it is fair to everyone.

If the intention is that during the high job losses we need to discourage those who are seeking access to labor market on a temporary basis then it should be fairly applicable to all the applicants atleast and NOT just to someone whose only fault is being married to a spouse who lost their job before the application was processed due to delays owing to a widespread disaster.

In general if a visa approval is based on someone's status it makes sense that the person is supposed to keep the status at least until the other visa/permit is approved.

I believe, AFAIK, in Canada, the temporary residential status is NOT linked with a job. EVEN in the case of a closed work permit. It is linked with validity of work permit and your following of conditions on work permit. Had it been the case, then on work permit, the condition will say something of the lines "Will leave Canada with in X days of losing employment". It was never intended to be like this.

At worst, a borders officer can DENY you entry in Canada because of risk of you seeking to work illegally if you didn't alredy have the right authorization BUT someone who is seeking proper authorization to work in Canada based on their eligibility, IMHO, should not be deprived of that based on pure lethargy of permit processing.

Taking a fee for something you are expecting a service. If Canada asked for much higher fees that covered all the costs related to providing a permit/visa then people could expect faster and better service. If people paid over and and above the cost of processing their applications then we could even get get even better service/

Actually... that is not true.

Why you may ask.

The reason is simple. IRCC is a department of federal government (AFAIK) not a Crown Corporation like Canada Post Corporation. Meaning, its finances are NOT governed by what it earns via fees etc BUT by what Federal Government of Canada allocates in federal budget. Its earning goes straight to Canada's federal revenue and not exactly back invested in say hiring more officers or buying better computers or commissioning better software. During budget, Government of Canada has various priorities and certainly (and naturally too) improving IRCC is way down the list than say funding public health initiatives. Compare this to CPC or BC Hydro or like wise, where the money they collect goes directly in their own finances and that includes providing better service to their clients.

Upshot is this : Even if the applicants paid more, its likely the money may not be invested back into IRCC. There are more priority items for federal government to fund than IRCC. Its the way government's finance work.