National Post editorial board: Hold immigrant sponsors to their word
The National Post
Posted: November 19, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor
This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that immigration-sponsorship contracts are generally enforceable. But the court also declared that Canadians who use these contracts to sponsor their relatives to enter the country are not automatically on the financial hook when the sponsored newcomers end up on government assistance. Instead, the court ordered that sponsorships that fail must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
On the surface, the court seems to have settled on a nuanced conclusion. But there is no need for nuance on such a black-and-white contractual issue: As with any contract, the parties intentions should be honoured. And the intentions behind these sponsorship agreements are hardly ambiguous: The documents state that if the person or persons being sponsored end up on the dole, the sponsors are obliged to pay for the resulting social assistance. Why should taxpayers foot the bill?
This is no trivial matter. Ontario, home to over half the sponsored immigrants each year, could be particularly hard hit by this weeks court decision.
Last year, just under 66,000 sponsored family class immigrants were welcomed into Canada, just over 34,000 of those to Ontario. So far this year, over 5,000 sponsored immigrants have applied for social assistance in Ontario at a cost of about $56-million to the provincial and municipal governments. If the same failure rate (15%) applies across the country, this could mean $100-million or more to taxpayers.
The good news is the vast majority of sponsorships are honoured: 85% or more of family-class immigrants are never a burden on taxpayers during their first 10 years in this country. The sponsorship programs works well enough to continue. But what to do with those who become a burden on government coffers?
The Ontario case was brought by eight sponsors who claim their circumstances, or those of the family members they guaranteed, had changed so much since they signed their forms that they should no longer be held accountable. One of the plaintiffs said a woman he had sponsored on the understanding she would marry him dumped him shortly after she arrived. Meanwhile, two women insisted the husbands they sponsored became abusive once they arrived.
These hard-luck stories tug at everyones heartstrings, and they make it difficult for us to advocate a blanket rule requiring hard-done-by sponsors to bankroll the social assistance provided to cads, wife-beaters and fickle lovers. But there is another choice, entirely: deporting the delinquent sponsoree. That would solve the governments problem, and that of the jilted sponsor, simultaneously.
The problem with the Ontario decision is that it reduces the sponsorship contract to a mere good-faith promise. It opens the door to tens of thousands of disingenuous sponsorships. Who wouldnt sign one of the pledges to get their relatives here if they knew that they could wiggle out once they are called upon to actually honour their obligations?
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/19/national-post-editorial-board-hold-immigrant-sponsors-to-their-word.aspx#ixzz0XX5VOjJM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
by jimshort19
Nov 19 2009
8:57 AM
“Ontario, home to over half the sponsored immigrants each year, could be particularly hard hit by this weeks court decision.” I don't believe it. We're already paying. Why exaggerate?
[]
by RogersJi
Nov 19 2009
9:03 AM
Makes too much sense, deport the person that doesn't keep up their side of the contract.
[]
by Dirt farmer
Nov 19 2009
9:16 AM
The court has it wrong. A contract is a contract. If these people want to annul the contract then these people should then be deported back to their home country. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for picking up the tab.
This decision will open the possibility of fraudulent abuse of the sponsorship.
[]
by Pavane
Nov 19 2009
9:55 AM
Common sense has left judges and politicians.
[]
by travelplus
Nov 19 2009
10:01 AM
Send the sponsors and sponsored back where they came from, we are not a bank from which they can help themselves.
[]
by edd333ed
Nov 19 2009
10:06 AM
We have a system in this country to deal with people who have made contracts that they now cannot pay — it's called bankruptcy.
Unfortunately for normal Canadian citizens, it doesn't allow you to get special treatment for debts run up by or for fickle lovers, abusive husbands, etc. If you signed for them, you pay them pro rata. Except the government gets special, preferred treatment for debts owed to it.
Under just what theory does a debt owed to the GOVERNMENT become unpayable because it was run up by or for a sponsored immigrant going on welfare who is alleged to be a fickle lover, abusive husband etc., to the sponsor who signed for it.
As if we didn't have enough bureaucrats performing useless tasks in the Immigration Ministry anyhow, now we need a new section to pass on whether sponsoree husbands are really rotters, sponsoree lovers are really fickle, etc.
Only in a country that has lost its mind…
[]
by ontarioboy
Nov 19 2009
10:11 AM
Ontario's unemployment rate is 10%, why are we still letting immigrants in? It makes no sense. Everyone says we need immigrants because its good for the economy, but how can it be good when they are all rushing for social assistance and health care? Our immigration policies make no sense; they are geared towards the immigrant, not the Canadian and the whole system is set up for immigration lawyers and consultants to make a buck.
[]
by ontarioboy
Nov 19 2009
10:11 AM
Ontario's unemployment rate is 10%, why are we still letting immigrants in? It makes no sense. Everyone says we need immigrants because its good for the economy, but how can it be good when they are all rushing for social assistance and health care? Our immigration policies make no sense; they are geared towards the immigrant, not the Canadian and the whole system is set up for immigration lawyers and consultants to make a buck.
[]
by Gone South
Nov 19 2009
10:19 AM
I am now sponsoring an immigrant family member for the third time. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is very clear in their sponsorship papers about the obligations of the sponsor. When I signed my application to sponsor, I took on those obligations with no expectation of wiggling out of it. The consequences should be: 1) the sponsor refunds government assistance paid to the immigrant; 2) the immigrant is deported. As a sponsor, I expect no less. Come on, politicians and judges, just do your job.
[]
by Willy18
Nov 19 2009
10:37 AM
These brain dead judges don't seem to understand that the planes fly both ways. The taxpayers of ontario cannot afford this kind of garbage. The last thing the sponsor should pay for is a ticket to the nearest airport.
[]
by Neilio74
Nov 19 2009
10:49 AM
As another poster pointed out “a contract is a contract”. How can judges just rip up contracts? This is an actual question, it seems illogical to me but then I'm not a lawyer.
[]
by Tossed Salad
Nov 19 2009
11:18 AM
Pavane said:
“Common sense has left judges and politicians”.
The operative word been “left”.
The words “left” and “common sense” just don't fit together.
[]
by MikeMurphy
Nov 19 2009
11:25 AM
Judges are at fault for being far to liberal in their interpretation of the law.
In fact they treat Family Law matters in a manner different than what was intended in the Divorce Act as well which is gender neutral but it seems to shaft men. If they are going to let sponsors out of their contracts why not deal more fairly with males who also had a contract for marriage.
A married Canadian male resident or citizen if his spouse walks out unilaterally despite a marriage contract (that is an oxy moron) can expect these same judges to:
Grant sole physical custody to the mom (immigrant or citiizen) (91% chance of this) – why not shared parenting instead
Grant to the mom child support that could amount to a rate of income if it were taxable (which it isn't) greater than half of the mans gross income before payments and far greater than what the man will have left after paying said support. Why not shared parenting and dad pays child support directly for his child?
Spousal support if the ex doesn't work.
A pro rated amount of the mans pension and assets up to 50% even if she walks out the door in the arms of a paramour and takes everything with her.
The strong likelihood of the family home.
So our judicial system practices its interpretation of the law not necessarily on its intent but on whatever liberal sympathies they might have for a certain situation. In family law there is clear gender discrimination.
In immigration matters it appears they think there is a power imbalance not with the female but with the immigrants who are not upholding their side of the contract. The answer is simple – deport them. Guess what – the judges are likely to do then when they see the consequences of their misjudging – interpret the law as it was written.
Just in case Dalton Mctaxraiser should change the law to be very clear so these poor judges don't have to think with their liberal filters on.
[]
by RobertA9
Nov 19 2009
11:52 AM
Deport the sponsors? What if the sponsor is a Canadian citizen? And what if the sponsor becomes unemployed and ends up on EI or welfare?
Yes, a contract is a contract, but I believe there is such a thing in contract law as force majeure.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Nov 19 2009
12:11 PM
ontarioboy,agreed! During this recession not one peep was heard from politicians about reducing immigration even though unemployment was rising. Immigration is a no-go zone for politicians because idiot leftwing media types accuse them of 'racism' even for bringing it up in conversation. We don't need anymore immigrants, particularly ones that don't contribute and immediately start sucking off the system. In 20 years when we're bankrupt and riven with ethnic riots people will wonder how it happened.
[]
by muggeridge
Nov 19 2009
1:23 PM
This lib-left judicial decision must be appealed and repealed.
It is tantamount to saying, in our bland and impotent Canadian way (circa Lester B. Pearson),
“…that it is not nice not be a thief and if you are caught (Dwayne) there could be repercussions but then again extenuating circumstances must be considered because no Liberal country would ever seriously consider holding anyone responsible for their actions.”
For God' sake, quit diddling and get off the fence before you further emasculate yourself. (if that is possible)
[]
by muggeridge
Nov 19 2009
1:37 PM
….revision of third paragraph, first sentence…………..
“…that it is not nice to be a thief and if you are caught (Dwayne) there could be repercussions but then again extenuating circumstances must be considered because no Liberal country would ever seriously consider holding anyone responsible for their actions.”
[]
by edd333ed
Nov 19 2009
1:40 PM
@RobertA9
Don't know who suggested deporting sponsors — obviously you can't if he/she is Canadian citizen. As for your other question, if the other obligations are too burdensome, bankruptcy is available — and the government well knows the meaning of judgment proof debtors. It deals with them constantly.
As Gone South states, it is a disservice to honest sponsors to let the others off. Pushing defaulters into bankruptcy if they said they couldn't pay along with their other obligations would discourage this.
But the worst problem is that the court's 'solution' of formal administrative review of the obligation is going to create an expensive and wholly unnecessary band of bureaucrats. And probably a minor industry of judical review of any decisions adverse to sponsors they make. As if there wasn't already enough garbage immigration litigation clogging the Federal Court.
[]
by Outlaw_CA
Nov 19 2009
2:06 PM
As much I am in favor of Immigration I am totally opposed to family sponsorship program. When a prospective immigrant apples for immigration he or she should then declare all the relatives that will accompany or follow him so his suitability can then be accessed. This back door immigration of usually unqualified and unsuitable immigrants is not in the interests of Canada and should be resisted except in the case of most exceptional circumstances. If the Government wishes to continue its current policy then it should require the sponsoring citizen or immigrant to post a bond that will pay for the support instead of burdening the tax payer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/19/national-post-editorial-board-hold-immigrant-sponsors-to-their-word.aspx#ixzz0XX5ucZ4O
