Moondoggy

Yes that is what I originally thought but I always thought it funny how the official information about deemed rehabilitation always states cases for either "2 or more summary offences" or "no more than one inditable offence"... it seems to miss out the case of just a single summary offence.

Is it the case that most offences in Canada are classed as hybrid and it is very unusual for a conviction to classed as just a single summary conviction in Canada law?

Anyway still waiting on more information and legal advice will update when I know more.

PMM

Hi

Nope, it is hybrid offence in Canada can be tried either summarily or by indictment. Hybrid convictions outside Canada are treated as if they would have been tried by indictment. So 10 years must have passed since the completion of the sentence, before deemed rehabilitation kicks in. Theft under $5K in Canada punished by way of indictment the maximum is 2 years.

"you may be deemed to have been rehabilitated if at least ten years have passed since you completed the sentence imposed upon you, or since you committed the offence, if the offence is one that would, in Canada, be an indictable offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years."

Moondoggy

Ah ok, thanks for that clarification. I didn't know that hybrid convictions outside of canada are automatically classed as an indictment offence with regards to immigration.

Moondoggy

PMM, your response here seems to contradict this:

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-imm...63669#msg63669

Here you say that theft under $5000 is a summary offence in Canada, has this changed recently since you posted this? (Feb 2009)

PMM

Hi

Yes.

Punishment for theft

334. Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars.

Moondoggy

What... so prior to Feb 2009, theft under $5000 was only considered a summary offence, but now it is classed as a hybrid offence (summary OR indictment)...

Wow, seems very late to be making such a fundamental change to legislation.

Moondoggy

More CHC London shenanigans:

Received a letter today (post office stamp for 15/11/11) which is dated 30th August stating that my partners work permit has been refused due to criminal inadmissibility.

This is in response to an email reply I sent them on Friday when they put in an email "as you have been previously told your partners work permit has been denied..." and I told them that at NO stage had they informed us it had been denied, just put on hold.

So due to this error on their part, they have either back dated a letter, or posted us one which has been sitting in their office since 30th August... nice!

Also as I pointed out to them (on Friday), we see no reason for his work permit to be denied at this stage since we are currently waiting on decision for his TRP. Common sense would surely point to the TRP application being processed first since obviously his work permit cannot be granted until he gets a TRP. You would think the workers at the embassy would also know this. If this isnt the case then it makes it impossible to apply for a TRP and work permit at the same time.

In my mind they have done this for either 2 reasons.
1) to get us to pay another processing fee for a work permit (and wait another 8-10 weeks), if/when he gets issued his TRP.
or
2) it looks bad for their stats to have a work permit application on hold indefinitely. but it is fine to have a TRP application go on for years and years.

Either way I think it's pretty sly behaviour on the part of the embassy, and again completely unhelpful to us as applicants.

christmasoompa

Sorry to hear that, but I suspect all that has happened is that they've copied the letter they sent to you on 30th August, which obviously got lost in the post (and which they were referring to in the email when they said 'as you have previously been told').

I don't think they're being 'sly', just re-sending you what you didn't receive the first time around!

Moondoggy

yes obviously lost in the post...

In the envelope was also an original receipt showing that they had taken the payment for the application processing fees (dated 7th june, before they would have sent the first letter), I guess they must have forgot to incude that in the first envelope that they sent.

Also the letter was a complete template, with a ticked box for why he was denied. nothing personal on the letter at all, except the "dear..." part which had my partners name.

No mention of his TRP appliction, no explanation as to why they would process the work permit file first knowing full well that he needs a TRP first.

christmasoompa

The person that did the TWP application probably won't have had a clue you'd even applied for a TRP as well - two separate applications, two separate processing depts. So they'll just have processed it as normal, sent the rejection letter and then re-sent it when you said you hadn't received it.

Moondoggy

That does sound pausible but again, Ive got evidence to show thats not the case.

When an immigration worker phoned me up, to inform me that my work permit was being authorised but my partners couldnt be authorised YET, he mentioned about my partners TRP and said it needed to be passed to a senior assessor for a decision, therefore he had prior knowledge that we were also applying for a TRP.

Also this is what has got me so mad, the guy on the phone definitely didnt say my partner had been refused a work permit, just that it would have to wait until a decision on his TRP.

Not to mention that when I queried him about the TRP application he gave me the impression it would take a further 3-4 weeks for a decision to be made.

Moondoggy

Right so thats it... me and my partner fly to Montreal next Tuesday (29th).

My new employer has organised everything and we are good to go, one thing is for sure, is that I will be in Canada for Christmas and New Year... we are just praying and keeping every finger and toe we have crossed, that my partner will also be allowed in to join me.

Very very nervous, but totally prepared on what we need to do... hope we have a positive response at immigration when we land.

Next Tuesday is probably going to be the longest day in both our lives!

irishgirl33

best of luck .hope it all works out for you guys.let us know how you get on.

Former Lancastrian

Here is some good advice that hopefully wont add to your stress level and wont upset readers or other posters on here.
We have established that your partner is inadmissible under section 36(2)(b) of IRPA (Immigration & Refugee Protection Act).
As you will be requesting a TWP at the POE chances are you will both be referred to Immigration Secondary Processing.
When being interviewed if asked about criminal records your partner MUST disclose their offence. If your partner doesnt and the BSO then checks FOSS after they have given their answer then the BSO will see that an application for a TRP has been made.
What the officers elects to do after that is anyones guess but if it was me then Im sorry to say I would be asking for a removal order as your partner had been asked about criminality and basically said No.
They would have then contravened section 16 of IRPA and along with the inadmissibility sufficient evidence to issue the removal order.
There again your partner could be waved through though highly unlikely.
Be truthful and Im sure everything will work out fine for you.

Moondoggy

Hi, thanks for your reply.

Don't worry, we are fully intending to give fully truthful information and be totally honest.

I'm not sure if I said earlier, or if i didnt make it fully clear but when we get to the immigration processing. We are going to declare that my partner needs a TRP and TWP. I.e informing them that we know he needs a TRP to enter Canada before he can get issued a work permit.

That has always been the plan. We were NEVER intending to just apply for his work permit and hope that they didn't ask about his criminal record.