Realistic is exactly what I'm looking for. Little point in being anything else. The Waterloo area. Not sure yet what the company package will be, haven't got that far yet.

I can't seem to post search results but a quick search of the Immigration forum for "autistic" shows a couple of interesting threads (and some irrelevant ones).

One poster says a friend's child passed the medical and another poster says they were refused.

thanks for that Biiiiink, I'll check that out today.

<stops arguing>

babyblue's comment about the high costs of medicine is an important point. In the most expensive year we spent $36,000 on heath related matters. OK, we have no insurance and that was slightly inflated for the tax return (we got the dental prebilled) but it's what I claimed and it passed an audit. Killer items are travel to remote hospitals and accomodation near them, lost income while gone and, in the case of accident prone children, surgical appliances. I just came across a bill for a $3,000 ankle brace from ten years ago. Autistic children are prone to injury, when throwing tantrums or just because they like to bang their heads, and so the miscellaneous costs can quickly mount up. I would think it to be of paramount importance that one of you get a job with benefits, that or one of you gets a job that pays shitloads of money.

Something of possible interest here :

Immigration policy document from: Canadian Public Policy - Analyse de Politiques, Vol. XXVI, No. 1 2000: http://www.yorku.ca
Refers to the Immigration Act, section 19a which states that immigration will not be allowed for families with a member who has a medical condition that may result in higher usage of the health care system than the average Canadian.

This is from :

http://www.autismsocietycanada.ca/li...s/index_e.html

Unpromising notes from the doctor's guide to filling in the medical bit of immigration forms :

Question 16: AUTISM, DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY, etc.

If there is a history of autism, mental retardation or developmental delay, and if the applicant is NOT excessive demand exempt, provide a specialist’s report, from a pediatrician and/or clinical psychologist as appropriate, to describe:

developmental history,
psychometric testing including IQ testing and assessment of adaptive skills, associated behaviour disorders,
specific diagnosis,
school, vocational training, and/or work records,
current and future treatment requirements / recommendations for speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, special education, or vocational training,
current and future need for ongoing supervision or institutional care.
If there is a history of senility or dementia interfering with the applicant’s activities of daily living and if the applicant is NOT excessive demand exempt, provide a complete assessment to include:

duration and rate of progression of symptoms,
diagnostic evaluation,
treatment and management requirements, and
a completed Mini Mental Status Questionnaire.
If the applicant is illiterate, and is NOT excessive demand exempt, then describe:

the applicant’s current adaptive life-skills,
the applicant’s capacity to communicate orally and through print,
the applicant’s counting skills and ability to use money,
etiology of the illiteracy to include whether there is evidence of mental retardation or a learning disability, with results of psychometric tests,
whether vocational training is required, and
whether the applicant has any other condition or disability that would prevent or impair the applicant’s ability to lead an independent life.
See:

Appendix X – Adult’s Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF)
Appendix XI – Assessment of Activities of Daily Living
Appendix XII – The Mini Mental State Examination

That's here :

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/dmp...pendix-09.html

It'd be interesting to find out what "excessive demand exempt" is all about. It'd also be interesting to know why Canadians assume anyone reading text is so weak in comprehension as to need every "not" shouted at them.

Isn't that an exemption for sponsored spouses/common-law partners, and possibly dependent children of PRs but don't quote me on the children bit?

I'd guess that it's a lot more specific than any spouse/partner but, I dunno, we gave up on the forms and hired a lawyer for a simpler case than this one.

Seems not - a bit irrelevant to the OP as a non-sponsor but IRPA says this about "excessive demand":-



38. (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;

(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or

(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

Exception

(2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply in the case of a foreign national who

(a) has been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;

(b) has applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances;

(c) is a protected person; or

(d) is, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other family member of a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/64755.html

Would vonny's husband be her sponsor or does "sponsor" here mean someone already in Canada who will bear financial responsibilty for the immigrants ?

I believe 2.a. means that a Candian Citizen can sponsor somebody who is handicaped under the family class terms, as they would be agreeing to provide full financial support for x years

That would make a kind of sense but, if I recall correctly, there was a big fuss quite recently about the government's refusal to admit a child in a wheelchair on healthcare grounds. I believe the parents were Canadians but the son wasn't. The story made the papers because the son was in a wheelchair after being shot fighting against the Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq. Unfortunately I don't remember the names but I'll dig a bit anyway.

On edit :

Khadr. iirc the younger Khadr was refused admission because of the burden on the healthcare system that he would have imposed.

Given that the reg's state "spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations"

they might be able to get out of the 'Child' bit if he was over 18?

I've just been reading it. I've found lots of stuff about the finger pointing, Ontario didn't want to pay to treat him and wanted the Feds to get rid of him, but I haven't found the legal arguments used. It's not of any help on this thread though, it turns out that he was/is a Canadian.

Or a PR (living in Canada, only citizens can sponsor from overseas). But when you say full financial support, I take it you don't mean meeting medical/extra education costs? I think that those would be covered from time of landing, that the sponsor would only be liable for the usual support (food, shelter, clothing etc - note to Mr B, that does *not* mean swanky new trainers).

dbd, I don't know the history but would refusal of that child not have been about security issues? If the mother's a citizen or PR in Canada (is the father deceased?) then the child is clearly excessive demand exempt, no way around that. My googling didn't show a refusal anyway... do you have a link?

Edit: ignore, written before the previous 2 posts