Citizenship and Immigration has recently changed the checklist for the submission of spousal sponsorship applications. Their motivation to do so is noble: they wish to increase consistency with respect to forms and documents and in so doing decrease processing times.
In the course of making these changes, they are experiencing some growing pains. Applications are being sent back, in some cases even where all documents on the checklist have been provide along with forms and corresponding fees. We recently experienced the return of an application which did meet the checklist and additional requirements. After it was returned we immediately contacted the Operations Manager at CPC-Mississauga.
The Manager not only responded to us in a helpful manner, they actually called our office to assist and provide some instructions on what we could do to rectify the situation so that no prejudice would be accorded to our client. Our communication was open, friendly and responsive on both sides and we are now in a position where it appears the situation would be resolved.
The above positive experience stood in stark contrast to our recent experience at an Alternate Dispute Resolution Conference (ADR). Our client had filed a conjugal partnership sponsorship which was refused a couple of years ago. Since that time, and with evidence provided to Minister's Counsel of the same, the applicant had moved to Canada and lived in Canada with the sponsor for over a year. The sponsor could therefore sponsor the applicant to Canada at this time.
We heard nothing from Minister's Counsel before the ADR and assumed that a good faith conference with a chance for resolution would take place. Instead Minister's Counsel, arriving fifteen minutes before the conference was to start, informed all parties that there was no chance of resolution. We had prepared documentation for our clients in the preceding months before the hearing and also practiced questioning with them in the preceding days, in the expectation that Minister's Counsel would take the process seriously and work in good faith to resolve the case after hearing from the Sponsor. Instead Minister's Counsel essentially abruptly cancelled the hearing the same day. Our clients were left bitter, disappointed and dumbfounded at our system. In such a case we are only left with the options of continuing the appeal or filing a new sponsorship. Either alternative involved more work for our clients and the system in general. The situation lent itself to resolution at the ADR itself, instead the outcome will be delayed due to a lack of professionalism and irrational obstinacy.
These two situations are very instructive. We have civil servants who can interpret existing laws and rules with common sense and reasonable discretion or engage in irrational exercises of cruel power. We can see that when the former is the practice we have a system that is responsive, open and ensures work is not duplicated by any interested party. When the latter is the practice the system is closed, uncommunicative and ensures repetition, duplication and frustration for all parties. We know which system Canadians want, but it is not always up to our government to ensure we get this system, often, as in these contrasting cases, it is up to the civil servants themselves.
In the course of making these changes, they are experiencing some growing pains. Applications are being sent back, in some cases even where all documents on the checklist have been provide along with forms and corresponding fees. We recently experienced the return of an application which did meet the checklist and additional requirements. After it was returned we immediately contacted the Operations Manager at CPC-Mississauga.
The Manager not only responded to us in a helpful manner, they actually called our office to assist and provide some instructions on what we could do to rectify the situation so that no prejudice would be accorded to our client. Our communication was open, friendly and responsive on both sides and we are now in a position where it appears the situation would be resolved.
The above positive experience stood in stark contrast to our recent experience at an Alternate Dispute Resolution Conference (ADR). Our client had filed a conjugal partnership sponsorship which was refused a couple of years ago. Since that time, and with evidence provided to Minister's Counsel of the same, the applicant had moved to Canada and lived in Canada with the sponsor for over a year. The sponsor could therefore sponsor the applicant to Canada at this time.
We heard nothing from Minister's Counsel before the ADR and assumed that a good faith conference with a chance for resolution would take place. Instead Minister's Counsel, arriving fifteen minutes before the conference was to start, informed all parties that there was no chance of resolution. We had prepared documentation for our clients in the preceding months before the hearing and also practiced questioning with them in the preceding days, in the expectation that Minister's Counsel would take the process seriously and work in good faith to resolve the case after hearing from the Sponsor. Instead Minister's Counsel essentially abruptly cancelled the hearing the same day. Our clients were left bitter, disappointed and dumbfounded at our system. In such a case we are only left with the options of continuing the appeal or filing a new sponsorship. Either alternative involved more work for our clients and the system in general. The situation lent itself to resolution at the ADR itself, instead the outcome will be delayed due to a lack of professionalism and irrational obstinacy.
These two situations are very instructive. We have civil servants who can interpret existing laws and rules with common sense and reasonable discretion or engage in irrational exercises of cruel power. We can see that when the former is the practice we have a system that is responsive, open and ensures work is not duplicated by any interested party. When the latter is the practice the system is closed, uncommunicative and ensures repetition, duplication and frustration for all parties. We know which system Canadians want, but it is not always up to our government to ensure we get this system, often, as in these contrasting cases, it is up to the civil servants themselves.
Comments