Substantive Barriers

• Author: Michael Battista/Adrienne Smith
• Pages: 153-183

153

8

Substantive

Barriers

I. Introduction ............................................. 154

II. Financial Hardship ........................................ 155

A. The Sponsorship Undertaking and Minimum

NecessaryIncome ................................... 156

III. Domestic Abuse and Sponsorship Breakdowns ................. 160

A. Domestic Abuse .................................... 160

B. Sponsorship Breakdown .............................. 167

C. Temporary Resident Permit for Victims of Family Violence ... 170

D. Converting Spousal Applications into Humanitarian

Applications ........................................ 172

E. Divorced Families and Uncooperative Former Spouses ..... 177

IV. Exclusion of Differently Structured Family Units ................ 179

A. Expanded Definition of Dependant ..................... 180

B. Siblings ........................................... 181

C. Other Relatives ..................................... 181

D. De Facto Dependants ................................ 182

E. Fiancés and Fiancées ................................ 183

F. Conclusion ......................................... 183

COPYRIGHT © 2022 EMOND MONTGOMERY PUBLICATIONS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

154 Part III Barriers to Family Reunification

I. Introduction

The Government of Canada has long exalted its commitment to family reunification

as an essential component of its humanitarian tradition, but there are many substan-

tive barriers that make it difficult for families to realize the dream of being reunited.

Ultimately, it is not international humanitarianism that drives the desire for families

to be reunited, but rather the dynamics of the family members themselves who push

and fight to be together once again.1 Unfortunately, numerous institutional barriers

within the many regulations and systems of the Canadian government make it dif-

ficult for families to come together on Canadian soil.

These barriers are especially felt by applicants in the family class and the spouse

or common law partner in Canada class (SCLPC). Among other things, difficulties

in having foreign educational and professional credentials recognized in Canada,

long delays in processing of applications, and refusals of temporary resident visas

that would allow families to be together during the processing of permanent resident

application all lead to prolonged separations.2 Any extended separation for families

only further contributes to the strain on family relationships and a diminished cap-

acity for those in Canada to fully establish themselves and contribute to Canadian

society. For example, spouses who can enter Canada only temporarily as visitors are

likely to have difficulty applying for a driver’s licence, have limited access to work or

study opportunities in Canada, and have minimal access to health coverage and other

services available only to permanent residents or Canadian citizens. This can make it

exceedingly difficult for families who do not have a final decision on their immigra-

tion status to engage fully as participants in Canadian society. They often delay such

things as purchasing property, investing in long-term savings plans, or even having

children.3 For many sponsors in Canada, the thought of even attempting a sponsor-

ship application is too overwhelming or too great a financial burden to overcome in

order to bring about family reunification.

1 Rell DeShaw posits in “The History of Family Reunification in Canada and Current Policy”

(Spring 2006) Canadian Issues 9: “Myth: family class immigration is based on humanitarian

considerations. Fact: family class immigration is premised on the importance of family reuni-

fication based on family relationships.” See Tania Dargy, Family Reunification in Canada:

Towards Authentic Humanitarianism (CARFMS Graduate/Law Student Essay Contest, Ryer-

son University, 2016) at 12, online (pdf): <https://carfms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/

Tania-Dargy.pdf>.

2 Letter from Vance Langford, Chair of the CBA Immigration Law Section to Borys Wrzes-

newskyj, Chair of the Citizenship and Immigration Committee (26 October 2016) at 3,

online (pdf ): <https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=14e53f42-575c-4d72

-a305-f0755560f232>.

3 Ibid at 3.

COPYRIGHT © 2022 EMOND MONTGOMERY PUBLICATIONS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.