pkjmet

Since my response to this questionfrom Erica was buried at the bottom
of the thread I thought I would post it again.

You will recall that the poster was convicted of an offence over ten
years ago but the fine was not paid until two years ago. MOst
respondants thought she needed a Permit. I am not so certain. Read
on....

I do not think this young lady is inadmissible at all to Canada. If
you have a copy of the Act and Regulations handy please read paragraph
18(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulations. There are two ten year periods to be
considered. Please note that they are separated by that great legal
word "or". In Erica's case the offence was committed ten years ago
i.e. 10 years have elapsed since the commission of the offence. No
mention is made of imposed sentence. Comments and other observations
from other contributors are welcome.

Jim Metcalfe

Andrew Miller

Yes Jim, you are correct.

I just missed the part that poster was convicted of the offence committed
over 10 years ago and I paid attention only to the year of conviction. Mea
culpa...

Thus the entire problem should be gone by now and there is no need for
Rehabilitation.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Since my response to this questionfrom Erica was buried at the bottom
    > of the thread I thought I would post it again.
    > You will recall that the poster was convicted of an offence over ten
    > years ago but the fine was not paid until two years ago. MOst
    > respondants thought she needed a Permit. I am not so certain. Read
    > on....
    > I do not think this young lady is inadmissible at all to Canada. If
    > you have a copy of the Act and Regulations handy please read paragraph
    > 18(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulations. There are two ten year periods to be
    > considered. Please note that they are separated by that great legal
    > word "or". In Erica's case the offence was committed ten years ago
    > i.e. 10 years have elapsed since the commission of the offence. No
    > mention is made of imposed sentence. Comments and other observations
    > from other contributors are welcome.
    > Jim Metcalfe

Erica

Hello Jim and Andrew,

the 10 year period is very confusing now. this is why we posted this
question in the first place. the last Act said 10 years from date of
completion of sentence, the new wording is the same BUT they also
added the 18(2)a-ii section which says 10 years from the date of
Conviction. now this a-ii section seems to make the a-i section
obsolete *ie how can a sentence ever be completed prior to the
conviction??*, but then why is the i section still there!!! very
confusing. i *assume, i know very bad in legal things* that there
must be docs somewhere stipulating specific qualifications for those
who fit in a-i or those who fit in a-ii?? is this really an oversight
by those who be with the BIG OR??? that will get fixed in June rewrite
of Act??

a quick question. i read somewhere that over 10 years and CR is
automatic? how/what/etc does this mean in this case??? and is this
true, and do i still need to file a CR with the PR if over 10years has
passed re:a-ii??

So I think best thing to do is first apply for TRP and see what the
Consul here says with respect to all this?

But if i just want to visit canada I THINK i need do nothing, just go.
but if i want to work i need first apply for a TRP and if they tell me
i qualify for a PR then i file a CR with a PR and wait...wait...wait


eriKa

"Andrew Miller" wrote in message news:...
    > Yes Jim, you are correct.
    >
    > I just missed the part that poster was convicted of the offence committed
    > over 10 years ago and I paid attention only to the year of conviction. Mea
    > culpa...
    >
    > Thus the entire problem should be gone by now and there is no need for
    > Rehabilitation.
    >
    > --
    >
    > ../..
    >
    > Andrew Miller
    > Immigration Consultant
    > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > email: [email protected]
    > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > ________________________________
    >
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Since my response to this questionfrom Erica was buried at the bottom
    > > of the thread I thought I would post it again.
    > >
    > > You will recall that the poster was convicted of an offence over ten
    > > years ago but the fine was not paid until two years ago. MOst
    > > respondants thought she needed a Permit. I am not so certain. Read
    > > on....
    > >
    > > I do not think this young lady is inadmissible at all to Canada. If
    > > you have a copy of the Act and Regulations handy please read paragraph
    > > 18(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulations. There are two ten year periods to be
    > > considered. Please note that they are separated by that great legal
    > > word "or". In Erica's case the offence was committed ten years ago
    > > i.e. 10 years have elapsed since the commission of the offence. No
    > > mention is made of imposed sentence. Comments and other observations
    > > from other contributors are welcome.
    > >
    > > Jim Metcalfe