{"id":9696,"date":"2021-09-16T12:57:39","date_gmt":"2021-09-16T19:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/heronlaw.ca\/proof-of-finances-what-the-instructions-dont-tell-you-and-five-quick-tips-to-bolster-proof-for-a-canadian-temporary-resident-application\/"},"modified":"2021-09-16T12:57:39","modified_gmt":"2021-09-16T19:57:39","slug":"proof-of-finances-what-the-instructions-dont-tell-you-and-five-quick-tips-to-bolster-proof-for-a-canadian-temporary-resident-application","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heronlaw.ca\/zh-hans\/proof-of-finances-what-the-instructions-dont-tell-you-and-five-quick-tips-to-bolster-proof-for-a-canadian-temporary-resident-application\/","title":{"rendered":"Proof of Finances: What the Instructions Don’t Tell You and Five Quick Tips To Bolster Proof for a Canadian Temporary Resident Application"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Let’s face it – Canadian immigration instructions are often scant on the little details and nuances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether it is for a Temporary Resident Visa (“TRV”) or a Study Permit (“SP”), there are immigration websites that provide confusing, and often contradictory messaging. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you need provide 3-month transaction record or a 6-month bank statement (or both)? Do you provide 4-months worth of bank statements? Should you convert your savings or investments into something more liquid? Do you need to provide income tax returns for yourself or parents?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first step of course is to check the Visa Office specific instructions for the specific application you are submitting. Then, check what the overall requirements are for your categories by browsing IRCC’s website (note: some pages are way out of date). Always do, what you can, to fit what is recommended by the end decision-maker. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality is, however, refusals will come more frequently in the coming years because of proof of funds. Not because you don’t have the funds, but because of the word ‘proof.’ <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Court decision in Kita v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),<\/em> 2020 FC 1084 (CanLII),<\/a> sets up this likelihood by taking the analysis out of R. 220 of the Immigration and Refugee Protections Regulations (IRPR) <\/em>to the R.216 IRPR<\/em> analysis of whether an individual will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Pallotta writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17<\/a>]  Ms. Kita submits that the Officer relied on an inaccurate factor by underestimating her available funds, which were not $15,000 USD as noted in the GCMS, but exceeded $30,000 USD<\/span>.  The respondent submits there was no error, and argues it is clear from the Officer\u2019s notation \u201c[Ms. Kita] and spouse applying for study permit and open work permit respectfully provided bank letters showing savings of over 15,000 US funds\u201d<\/q> that the Officer simply meant to write \u201crespectively\u201d<\/q> rather than \u201crespectfully\u201d<\/q>.  To this point Ms. Kita responds that the reference to $15,000 USD is certainly the wrong figure, and a reviewing court should not guess what the Officer meant.  I am not persuaded by Ms. Kita\u2019s arguments.  The Officer\u2019s notes above clearly refer to bank letters.  The record includes two bank letters from Ms. Kita and her husband, each reflecting savings of about $15,000 USD.  Furthermore, a field in the GCMS record titled \u201cAvailable Funds\u201d<\/q> indicates $40,000 CAD, which is roughly equivalent to $30,000 USD and consistent with both Ms. Kita\u2019s application form, which indicates available funds of $40,000 CAD, and the covering letter to Ms. Kita\u2019s application, which indicates available funds of $42,000 CAD.  I am not satisfied that Officer underestimated Ms. Kita\u2019s available savings.<\/span><\/p>

[18<\/a>]  Ms. Kita submits that the unknown provenance of her available funds was an irrelevant factor, as the IRPR<\/a><\/em> does not require applicants to prove the provenance or origin of their funds.  Section 220<\/a> of the IRPR<\/a><\/em> only requires proof of sufficient funds for the program of study and Ms. Kita states that she provided such proof: in addition to savings of over $30,000 USD, Ms. Kita had already paid a part of her tuition, she and her husband planned to stay with family who would cover the accommodation costs, and her husband planned to work during their stay as a skilled tradesman.  <\/span>Thus, in raising the issue of the origin of the funds, Ms. Kita argues that the Officer imposed an arbitrary requirement, and erred by misapplying the criteria that were relevant to the exercise of discretion: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue)<\/em>, 2007 SCC 2<\/a> at para 93<\/a>.<\/p>

[19<\/a>]  Furthermore, Ms. Kita argues the Officer fettered discretion by drawing an adverse inference from a concern, which was never articulated, that she and her husband obtained their savings by dishonest means as opposed to family generosity or fiscal responsibility, particularly when there were no grounds to question the provenance of the funds based on the evidence<\/span> (i.e. that Ms. Kita\u2019s family are relatively affluent land owners in Albania, that she and her husband were living with his parents, and that her husband has a skilled trade).  Ms. Kita contends the adverse inference was invalid and constitutes a defect in the logical process supporting the decision: Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc.<\/em>, 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC)<\/a>, [1997] 1 SCR 748 at para 56<\/a>.<\/p>

[20<\/a>]  In my view, the Officer did not suggest that Ms. Kita and her husband obtained their savings through dishonest means.  Also, the Officer did not refuse Ms. Kita\u2019s application for failing to meet the requirements of section 220<\/a> of the IRPR<\/a><\/em>, and the fact that section 220<\/a> only requires proof of sufficient funds does not necessarily render the origin of the funds irrelevant to the criteria under subsection 216 of the IRPR<\/a><\/em>.  Ms. Kita has not established that the IRPA<\/a><\/em> and IRPR<\/a><\/em> preclude an officer from considering the amount and origin of funds when deciding whether an applicant will leave Canada at the end of their stay.  It was reasonable for the Officer to consider such factors in this case.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What Justice Pallotta’s decision opens the door for is refusal on the ground of proof of finances, even if the finances themselves meet R.220 because the evidence needed to meet the threshold could ALSO be relevant in an R. 216 IRPR <\/em>analysis. One can think of ways this might apply:<\/p>\n\n\n\n