Date: 20090904
Docket: IMM-3045-08
Citation: 2009 FC 875
Ottawa, Ontario, September
4, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
JANOS ROBERT GUNTHER,
JANOSNE (MARIA) GUNTHER,
ANITA GUNTHER and
MELINDA GUNTHER
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondents
and
LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER
and CHARTER COMMITTEE ON
POVERTY ISSUES
Interveners
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Background
[1]
The
Applicants are a family of two adults, one daughter and one granddaughter who
are all Hungarian citizens. The family first arrived in Canada in 1997. After an
unsuccessful claim for refugee protection, they returned to Hungary in April 2000. In August
2000, the family entered Canada once more.
[2]
After
the refusal of their application for pre-removal risk assessment in June 2004, all legal avenues for remaining in
Canada had been exhausted but for an application to apply, pursuant to s. 25(1)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA),
for an exemption from certain requirements of IRPA on the basis of
humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations. Specifically, they
wanted to be: (a) exempted from the requirement in s. 11 of IRPA that
they apply for permanent residence status before entering Canada; and (b) to be granted
permanent residence from within Canada on H&C grounds. The Applicants allege
that they could not afford the $1400 fee required for the processing of the s.
25 in-Canada application. No H&C application was ever made.
[3]
On
March 30, 2006, the Applicants were removed from Canada. They now reside in Hungary. It is undisputed that
the Applicants could apply for permanent resident status from Hungary. However, they assert
that they would be required to pay $1400 for the processing of their
application, an amount that they assert they cannot afford.
[4]
In
this application for judicial review, the Applicants do not challenge a
decision or order made by the Minister. Rather, the Applicants challenge the
validity of the fees required for the Minister to process their application
under s. 25 of IRPA, which fees are established by s. 89 of IRPA
and s. 307 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (IRP Regulations or the
Regulations).
[5]
In
this application for judicial review, the Applicants seek a number of remedies.
The key remedies sought by the Applicants can be stated as follows:
·
An
order compelling the Governor General in Council (GIC) to make a regulation
providing for the waiving of the fees in the case of the Applicants, Social
Assistance Recipients and other indigent persons, seeking to access the
procedure under s.25(1) of IRPA;
·
A
declaration that ss. 307, 295 and 10(1)(d) of the IRP Regulations, which
require the payment of a fee as a condition of accessing the procedure under
s.25(1) of IRPA is ultra vires in that it fetters the Minister’s
discretion under s. 25(1) of IRPA;
·
A
declaration that ss. 307, 295 and 10(1)(d) are inoperative as being contrary to
s. 15(1) and s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (Charter);
and
·
A
declaration that ss. 307, 295 and 10(1)(d) are in breach of the “foundational
constitutional principles of the Rule of Law” and thus invalid.
[6]
By
Order of Prothonotary Aalto, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) and
Low Income Families Together (LIFT) were granted intervener status in this application
for judicial review.
II. History of this Application for
Judicial Review
[7]
In
May 2006, the Applicants and the Krena family (see Court File No. IMM-2926-08)
commenced separate actions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (OSCJ)
challenging the H&C application fees on substantially the same grounds as
alleged in this judicial review application. On February 27, 2007, Justice
Himel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion to stay the
Krena and Gunther actions on the basis that the Federal Court was the
appropriate forum to pursue these matters. Since the parties had already taken
steps in the OSCJ actions, Justice Himel ordered that the pleadings,
examinations, expert reports and other documentary discovery exchanged in those
actions could be relied upon in any Federal Court proceedings.
[8]
On
May 4, 2007, the Krena family and the Gunther family filed a joint statement of
claim (Court File No. T-749-07). The defendant in the Federal Court action
brought a motion to direct the plaintiffs to proceed by way of judicial review.
The motion was adjourned pending the outcome of the Federal Court of Appeal in Hinton
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008
FC 7, rev’d 2008 FCA 215, [2009] 1 F.C.R. 476, in which a number of
questions were certified relating to the appropriate procedural steps for
constitutional challenges to fee regulations of the IRPA. The Federal
Court of Appeal’s decision in Hinton upheld the procedure of challenging
the fee regulations by way of an application for leave and judicial review, and
then having the application be converted to an action and certified as a class
action once leave was granted.
[9]
The
Applicants, therefore, commenced the present application for leave and judicial
review following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hinton.
III. Legislative Framework
[10]
Immigration
law requires that all applications for permanent residence in Canada be made
from outside Canada (IRPA, s.
11(1)). However, s. 25 of IRPA gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
(the Minister) the discretion to exempt persons from that requirement on the
basis of H&C considerations. Applicants who seek permanent residence on
this basis are required to pay a processing fee. Section 89 of the IRPA
allows the Minister to prescribe fees for the services provided in the
administration of IRPA and s. 307 of the IRP Regulations
specifically sets out a fee for an in-Canada H&C application under s. 25 of
IRPA. Section 10(1)(d) of the IRP Regulations states, in effect,
that an application may not be processed unless the applicable processing fee
is paid.
[11]
Foreign
nationals who are not in Canada may also access s.
25(1). However, they do so in a different fashion. Under s. 66 of the IRP
Regulations, a foreign national outside Canada may make an application for a permanent
resident visa. Fees for processing this application are set out in s. 295 of
the IRP Regulations. At the same time as an application for permanent
resident visa is made, the foreign national may also seek an exemption from any
of the requirements under IRPA, on H&C grounds. However, for the
H&C application in those circumstances, there would be no fee payable.
Section 307 of the IRP Regulations provides that a fee for the s. 25(1)
processing is only payable where no fees are already payable.
[12]
The
full text of these relevant provisions is set out in Appendix A to these
reasons.
IV. Do the Applicants have standing to
bring this judicial review?
[13]
The
threshold question to be addressed is whether the Applicants have standing to
bring this application for judicial review. In my view, they do not.
[14]
The
entire underpinning of this application for judicial review is the Minister’s
discretion under s. 25 of IRPA to exempt an applicant from the
requirement to make application for permanent residence from outside Canada. The fee in question is
the fee provided for in the IRP Regulations for an in-Canada application
under s. 25.
[15]
The
Applicants are no longer in Canada and, thus, do not need such an exemption. They may make an
application for permanent residence in the same manner as any other foreign
national. If and when the Applicants apply for permanent resident visas outside
Canada under s. 66 of the IRP
Regulations, they will be required to pay the fees required by s. 295 of
the IRP Regulations. At the same time the Applicants may also seek an
exemption, under s. 25(1) of IRPA, from any of the requirements under IRPA,
on H&C grounds, that may otherwise have prevented approval of their
application for permanent resident visas. However, as noted above, no fee would
be payable under s. 25(1) in those circumstances.
[16]
In
response, the Applicants assert that they still wish to access s. 25 to seek an
exemption from the payment of fees for their applications for permanent
resident visas. In effect, they argue that their current judicial review
application is broad enough to capture any request for relief of any
obligation under IRPA, including a request for fee waiver for their
offshore permanent resident visa applications. I do not agree.
[17]
A
review of the record before me in this judicial review indicates that the
Applicants have not sought judicial review of the general ability of the
Minister to waive fees for access to any procedure in IRPA. Rather, the
remedies sought by the Applicants, their grounds for the judicial review and
the evidentiary record before me all relate solely to fees payable under s.
25(1) of IRPA for an in-Canada H&C application. The Applicants would
not be required to pay any fee under s. 25(1) to have their applications
considered on H&C grounds.
[18]
The
Applicants are no longer “directly affected by the matter in respect of which
relief is sought”, as required by s. 18.1(1) of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. In the
present case, the Applicants seek judicial review of the Minister’s discretion
to grant permanent resident status to a foreign national in Canada. As previously pointed
out, since the Applicants have left Canada, they do not violate s. 11 of the IRPA.
Thus, they cannot and need not make an in-Canada H&C application, where
fees are mandated. Thus, the remedy of requiring the Minister to waive
application fees for in-Canada H&C is no longer applicable, or relevant
[19]
Further,
with respect to any application they may make from outside Canada, no fee would be
payable under s. 307 of the Regulations to access the procedures of s.
25(1).
[20]
The
question of standing in an application for judicial review was recently
considered in the case of League for Human Rights of B'Nai
Brith Canada v. Canada, 2008 FC 732, 334 F.T.R. 63.
In that decision, Justice Dawson reviewed the concept of “directly affected” as
the terminology was used in s.18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. At paragraphs 24-25, she wrote:
The
jurisprudence establishes that, for a party to be considered to be
"directly affected," the decision at issue must be one which directly
affects the party's rights, imposes legal obligations on it, or prejudicially
affects it directly. See: Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1976] 2 F.C. 500 (C.A.).
In
Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, an appeal
from the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada quoted with
approval at page 623 the following passage from Australian Conservation Foundation
Inc. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1980), 28 A.L.R. 257, when considering
the existence of direct standing:
A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule,
unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting
a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other
than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails.
[Emphasis
added]
[21]
The
reasons underlying the Applicants’ judicial review application disappeared when
they left Canada in 2006. The Applicants
could not gain any benefit or advantage from this judicial review, beyond the
“satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest”.
[22]
In the alternative,
the Applicants’ judicial review application would fail for reasons of mootness.
As the parties have not raised this issue, I will deal with it briefly. The
Supreme Court of Canada in Borowski
v. Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, [1989] S.C.J. No.
14 set out the principles for mootness: “The general principle applies when the
decision of the court will not have the effect of resolving some controversy
which affects or may affect the rights of the parties. If the decision of the
court will have no practical effect on such rights, the court will decline to
decide the case” (at para.15). Thus, “a case is moot if it fails to meet the
‘live controversy’ test” (at para.16).
[23]
Borowski set out a two-step analysis for
mootness. First, the question is whether a tangible and concrete dispute has
become academic. Second, if the answer to the first part is affirmative, one
asks whether the court should nonetheless exercise its discretion to hear the
case based on several factors: (a) an adversarial relationship between the
parties still exists; (b) the expenditure of limited court resources is
justified; and (c) in exercising its jurisdiction, the court stays within its
adjudicative role rather than intruding into the role of the legislature.
[24]
Applying this to the
case at bar, the Applicants’ judicial review of the Minister’s decision to
enforce the requisite fee for the H&C application is moot. A decision by
this Court would have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. In
other words, there is no “live controversy” that remains. This is exemplified
in paragraph 23 of Borowski: “the inapplicability of a statute to the
party challenging the legislation renders a dispute moot”.
[25]
Second, even if an
adversarial relationship still exists between the parties, and the expenditure
of limited court resources is justified, a decision by this Court on the
payment or not of fees would overstep our adjudicative function and reach into
the realm of political decision-making. The blurring of roles is particularly
evident from the remedy sought by the applicant: an order compelling the GIC to
make a regulation about H&C fees under s. 25(1) of IRPA.
Furthermore, under s. 89 of IRPA, the government has exclusive powers to
establish or waive fees by regulation. Thus, it is clear that Parliament’s
intention is to waive fees by legislative decisions or regulations – not by
judicial pronouncements under s. 25(1) of IRPA.
[26]
Finally, I decline to
exercise my discretion to consider the now-hypothetical questions posed by the Applicants.
V. Conclusion
[27]
In
summary, I conclude that this application for judicial review will be dismissed
on the basis that:
a)
the
Applicants have no standing; or
b)
the
matter is now moot.
[28]
The
Applicants ask that I certify the following question:
Where
the Minister has represented that he has neither the obligation nor discretion
to waive the humanitarian and compassionate applications fee, do indigent
persons who are removed from Canada when they could not afford to pay the
fee, lose standing to challenge the propriety of the fee for persons in their
circumstances?
[29]
In
my view, this question is not appropriate for certification. The underlying
assumption of the proposed question is that the Applicants were removed from Canada because they could not
afford to pay the fee. The actual situation is that they were removed from Canada because of the
existence of a valid removal order. It is pure speculation that, had they made
a s. 25 in-Canada application on H&C grounds, they would have been
successful. Further, the statement that they could not afford to pay the fee is
the subject of contradictory evidence in the record. Finally, I cannot conclude
that this is a question of general importance since I have no evidence as to
how many others (if any) are in a similar situation.
[30]
Having
determined that no question will be certified, however, I observe that many of
the issues raised by the Applicants in their submissions have been considered
in the companion file of Toussaint v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), Court File No. IMM-326-09 and that questions have been
certified in that judgment.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
the
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
no
question of general importance is certified.
“Judith
A. Snider”
APPENDIX “A”
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c, 27
|
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, c.
27
|
|
Application before entering Canada
11. (1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada,
apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the
regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination,
the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and
meets the requirements of this Act.
Humanitarian
and compassionate considerations
25. (1) The Minister shall, upon request of a
foreign national in Canada who is inadmissible or who does not meet the
requirements of this Act, and may, on the Minister’s own initiative or on request
of a foreign national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning
the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident
status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act
if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and
compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best
interests of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations.
Provincial criteria
(2) The Minister may not grant permanent resident status
to a foreign national referred to in subsection 9(1) if the foreign national
does not meet the province’s selection criteria applicable to that foreign
national.
Fees
Regulations
89. The regulations may
govern fees for services provided in the administration of this Act, and
cases in which fees may be waived by the Minister or otherwise, individually
or by class.
|
Visa et documents
11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada,
demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent
peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, que l’étranger n’est
pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi.
Séjour pour motif d’ordre humanitaire
25. (1) Le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant au
Canada qui est interdit de territoire ou qui ne se conforme pas à la présente
loi, et peut, de sa propre initiative ou sur demande d’un étranger se
trouvant hors du Canada, étudier le cas de cet étranger et peut lui octroyer
le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie des critères et
obligations applicables, s’il estime que des circonstances d’ordre
humanitaire relatives à l’étranger — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de
l’enfant directement touché — ou l’intérêt public le justifient.
Critères provinciaux
(2) Le statut ne
peut toutefois être octroyé à l’étranger visé au paragraphe 9(1) qui ne
répond pas aux critères de sélection de la province en cause qui lui sont
applicables.
Frais
Règlement
89. Les règlements peuvent prévoir les frais pour les services offerts
dans la mise en oeuvre de la présente loi, ainsi que les cas de dispense,
individuellement ou par catégorie, de paiement de ces frais.
|
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227
Form and content of application
10. (1) Subject to paragraphs 28(b) to (d),
an application under these Regulations shall
. . .
(d) be
accompanied by evidence of payment of the applicable fee, if any, set out in
these Regulations;
Division 5
Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations
Request
66. A request made by a foreign national
under subsection 25(1) of the Act must be made as an application in writing
accompanied by an application to remain in Canada as a permanent resident or,
in the case of a foreign national outside Canada,
an application for a permanent resident visa.
Fees for Applications for Visas and Permits
Permanent resident visa
295. (1) The following fees are payable for processing an
application for a permanent resident visa:
(a) if the application is
made by a person as a member of the family class
(i) in respect of a principal
applicant, other than a principal applicant referred to in subparagraph (ii),
$475,
(ii) in respect of a principal
applicant who is a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs 117(1)(b)
or (f) to (h), is less than 22 years of age and is not a spouse
or common-law partner, $75,
(iii) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is 22 years of age or older or is less
than 22 years of age and is a spouse or common-law partner, $550, and
(iv) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is less than 22 years of age and is not
a spouse or common-law partner, $150;
(b) if the application is
made by a person as a member of the investor class, the entrepreneur class,
the self-employed persons class, the transitional federal investor class, the
transitional federal entrepreneur class or the transitional federal
self-employed persons class
(i) in respect of a principal
applicant, $1,050,
(ii) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is 22 years of age or older or is less
than 22 years of age and is a spouse or common-law partner, $550, and
(iii) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is less than 22 years of age and is not
a spouse or common-law partner, $150; and
(c) if the application is
made by a person as a member of any other class or by a person referred to in
section 71
(i) in respect of a principal
applicant, $550,
(ii) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is 22 years of age or older or is less
than 22 years of age and is a spouse or common-law partner, $550, and
(iii) in respect of a family
member of the principal applicant who is less than 22 years of age and is not
a spouse or common-law partner, $150.
Exception — refugees
(2)
The following
persons are not required to pay the fees referred to in subsection (1):
(a) a person who makes an application
as a member of the Convention refugees abroad class and the family members
included in the member's application; and
(b) a person who makes an
application as a member of one of the humanitarian-protected persons abroad
classes and the family members included in the member's application.
Exception — transitional skilled worker class
(2.1)
The following
persons are not required to pay the fees referred to in subsection (1):
(a) a person described in
paragraph 85.1(2)(a) who makes an application as a member of the
transitional federal skilled worker class for a permanent resident visa and
the family members included in the member's application who were also
included in the application referred to in subsection 85.1(2); and
(b) a person described in
paragraph 85.1(2)(b) who makes an application as a member of the
transitional federal skilled worker class for a permanent resident visa and
the family members included in the member's application who were also
included in the application referred to in subsection 85.1(2), if the fees
for processing their withdrawn application have not been refunded.
Exception — transitional federal business classes
(2.2)
The following
persons are not required to pay the fees referred to in subsection (1):
(a) a person described in
paragraph 109.1(2)(a) who makes an application as a member of the
transitional federal investor class, the transitional federal entrepreneur
class or the transitional federal self-employed persons class for a permanent
resident visa and the family members included in the member's application who
were also included in the application referred to in subsection 109.1(2); and
(b) a person described in
paragraph 109.1(2)(b) who makes an application as a member of the
transitional federal investor class, the transitional federal entrepreneur
class or the transitional federal self-employed persons class for a permanent
resident visa and the family members included in the member's application who
were also included in the application referred to in subsection 109.1(2), if
the fees for processing their withdrawn application have not been refunded.
Payment by sponsor
(3)
A fee payable under
subsection (1) in respect of a person who makes an application as a member of
the family class or their family members
(a) is payable, together
with the fee payable under subsection 304(1), at the time the sponsor files
the sponsorship application; and
(b) shall be repaid in
accordance with regulations referred to in subsection 20(2) of the Financial
Administration Act if, before the processing of the application for a
permanent resident visa has begun, the sponsorship application is withdrawn
by the sponsor.
Age
(4)
For the purposes of
paragraph (1)(a), the age of the person in respect of whom the
application is made shall be determined as of the day the sponsorship
application is filed.
Application under Section 25 of the Act
Fees
307. The following fees are payable for processing an application made in
accordance with section 66 if no fees are payable in respect of the same
applicant for processing an application to remain in Canada as a permanent
resident or an application for a permanent resident visa:
(a) in the case of a principal applicant, $550;
(b) in the case of a family member of the principal applicant who
is 22 years of age or older or is less than 22 years of age and is a spouse
or common-law partner, $550; and
(c) in
the case of a family member of the principal applicant who is less than 22
years of age and is not a spouse or common-law partner, $150.
|
Règlement
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, DORS/2002-227
Forme et contenu de la demande
10. (1) Sous réserve des alinéas 28b) à d),
toute demande au titre du présent règlement :
. . .
d) est accompagnée d’un récépissé de paiement des droits
applicables prévus par le présent règlement;
Section 5
Circonstances d’ordre humanitaire
Demande
66. La demande faite par un
étranger en vertu du paragraphe 25(1) de la Loi doit être faite par écrit et
accompagnée d’une demande de séjour à titre de résident permanent ou, dans le
cas de l’étranger qui se trouve hors du Canada, d’une demande de visa de
résident permanent.
Frais des demandes de visa et de permis
Visa de résident permanent
Frais
295. (1) Les
frais ci-après doivent être acquittés pour l’examen de la demande de visa de
résident permanent :
a) si la demande est faite au titre de la catégorie du regroupement
familial :
(i) dans le cas
du demandeur principal autre que celui visé au sous-alinéa (ii), 475 $,
(ii) dans le
cas du demandeur principal qui est un étranger visé à l’un des alinéas 117(1)b)
ou f) à h), est âgé de moins de vingt-deux ans et n’est pas un
époux ou conjoint de fait, 75 $,
(iii) dans le
cas d’un membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de
vingt-deux ans ou plus ou qui, s’il est âgé de moins de vingt-deux ans, est
un époux ou conjoint de fait, 550 $,
(iv) dans le
cas d’un membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de moins de
vingt-deux ans et qui n’est pas un époux ou conjoint de fait, 150 $;
b) si la demande est faite au titre de la catégorie des
investisseurs, de celle des entrepreneurs, de celle des travailleurs
autonomes, de celle des investisseurs (fédéral — transitoire), de celle des
entrepreneurs (fédéral — transitoire) ou de celle des travailleurs autonomes
(fédéral — transitoire) :
(i) dans le cas
du demandeur principal, 1 050 $,
(ii) dans le
cas du membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de vingt-deux ans
ou plus ou qui, s’il est âgé de moins de vingt-deux ans, est un époux ou
conjoint de fait, 550 $,
(iii) dans le
cas du membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de moins de
vingt-deux ans et qui n’est pas un époux ou conjoint de fait, 150 $;
c) si la demande est faite au titre de toute autre catégorie ou par
une personne visée à l’article 71 :
(i) dans le cas
du demandeur principal, 550 $,
(ii) dans le
cas du membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de vingt-deux
ans ou plus ou qui, s’il est âgé de moins de vingt-deux ans, est un époux ou
conjoint de fait, 550 $,
(iii) dans le
cas du membre de la famille du demandeur principal qui est âgé de moins de
vingt-deux ans et qui n’est pas un époux ou conjoint de fait, 150 $.
Exceptions : réfugiés
(2) Les personnes ci-après ne sont pas tenues d’acquitter les
frais prévus au paragraphe (1) :
a) celle qui fait une demande au titre de la catégorie des réfugiés
au sens de la Convention outre-frontières et les membres de sa famille visés
par sa demande;
b) celle qui fait une demande au titre de l’une des catégories de
personnes protégées à titre humanitaire outre-frontières et les membres de sa
famille visés par sa demande.
Exceptions : catégorie des
travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral — transitoire)
(2.1) Les personnes ci-après ne sont pas tenues d’acquitter les
frais prévus au paragraphe (1) :
a) celle visée à l’alinéa 85.1(2)a) qui fait une demande de
visa de résident permanent au titre de la catégorie des travailleurs
qualifiés (fédéral — transitoire) et les membres de sa famille visés par sa
demande qui l’étaient déjà par la demande visée au paragraphe 85.1(2);
b) celle visée à l’alinéa 85.1(2)b) qui fait une demande de
visa de résident permanent au titre de la catégorie des travailleurs
qualifiés (fédéral — transitoire) et les membres de sa famille visés par sa
demande qui l’étaient déjà par la demande visée au paragraphe 85.1(2), si les
frais de traitement de la demande qui a été retirée n’ont pas été remboursés.
Exceptions : gens d’affaires
(fédéral — transitoire)
(2.2) Les personnes ci-après ne sont pas tenues d’acquitter les
frais prévus au paragraphe (1) :
a) celle visée à l’alinéa 109.1(2)a) qui fait une demande de
visa de résident permanent au titre de la catégorie des investisseurs
(fédéral — transitoire), de la catégorie des entrepreneurs (fédéral —
transitoire) ou de la catégorie des travailleurs autonomes (fédéral —
transitoire) et les membres de sa famille visés par sa demande qui l’étaient
déjà par la demande visée au paragraphe 109.1(2);
b) celle visée à l’alinéa 109.1(2)b) qui fait une demande de
visa de résident permanent au titre de la catégorie des investisseurs
(fédéral — transitoire), de la catégorie des entrepreneurs (fédéral —
transitoire) ou de la catégorie des travailleurs autonomes (fédéral —
transitoire) et les membres de sa famille visés par sa demande qui l’étaient
déjà par la demande visée au paragraphe 109.1(2), si les frais de traitement
de la demande qui a été retirée n’ont pas été remboursés.
Paiement par le répondant
(3) Les frais prévus au paragraphe (1) à l’égard de la
personne qui présente une demande au titre de la catégorie du regroupement
familial ou à l’égard des membres de sa famille sont :
a) exigibles au moment où le répondant dépose sa demande de
parrainage, à l’instar des frais prévus au paragraphe 304(1);
b) restitués conformément aux règlements visés au paragraphe 20(2)
de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques, si la demande de
parrainage est retirée par le répondant avant que ne débute l’examen de la
demande de visa de résident permanent.
Âge
(4) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)a), l’âge de la
personne visée par la demande est déterminé à la date où la demande de
parrainage est déposée.
Demande en vertu de l’article 25 de la Loi
Frais
307. Les frais ci-après sont à payer pour l’examen de la
demande faite aux termes de l’article 66 si aucuns frais ne sont par ailleurs
à payer à l’égard du même demandeur pour l’examen d’une demande de séjour au
Canada à titre de résident permanent ou d’une demande de visa de résident
permanent :
a) dans le cas du demandeur principal, 550 $;
b) dans le cas d’un membre de la famille du demandeur
principal qui est âgé de vingt-deux ans ou plus ou qui, s’il est âgé de moins
de vingt-deux ans, est un époux ou conjoint de fait, 550 $;
c) dans le cas d’un membre de la famille du demandeur
principal qui est âgé de moins de vingt-deux ans et n’est pas un époux ou
conjoint de fait, 150 $.
|
Email this Content