最高法院：新移民领福利 担保人要还政府钱ZT

[Fisher2004]

最高法院：新移民领福利 担保人要还政府钱
加拿大家园 iask.ca 2011-06-11 07:20 来源: 明报

最高法院：新移民领福利 担保人要还政府钱



图为一名行人走过渥太华的加拿大最高法院

(明报)加拿大最高法院维护两级政府的权益，新移民领社会福利金，政府可向担保人收回。

加拿大最高法院周五裁定，新移民抵后领取社会福利金，联邦和省政府有权追究，担保人必须偿还政府。这个里程碑裁决涉及八个安省移民家庭的个案，他们担保海外亲人来加，抵后却依赖福利金过活。

根据联邦移民法，假如新移民来加后领取福利，担保人同意偿还。

最高法院以九对零作出裁决，一致推翻安省上诉法院的判决，它支持担保人不用偿还，这些担保人都声称有困难。

8家庭须退还1至9.4万

这些个案需退回社会援助金给安省政府，从1万元到9.4万元不等。

法官宾尼(Ian Binnie)周五代表法庭写道﹕：亲人游手好闲的风险，应由担保人承担，而不是纳税人。」

法庭指出，政府有酌情权延迟索回欠款，但不能完全不追债。政府有义务通知担保人，说他们有欠款，给他们机会解释财务状况。

法庭审理这八宗个案，担保人不付款的理由，包括脱离一段凌虐关係与失业。两宗个案是担保人的未婚妻或配偶来加后即分手，开始领取社会福利。

担保人2008年入禀安省高等法院，希望延迟或逃避还钱给省府。

法院拒绝他们的理由，说担保实际是一项合约，担保人明白他们要为亲人承担经济责任。

安省上诉法院2009年推翻塬审裁决，说政府可酌情不追债。它指出，法律订明款项「或许」可索回。

上诉法庭指出，省府应保证担保人获得程序公平性，他们可透过一个程序，解释他们的状况。但最高法院裁定，八宗个案全部符合程序公平标準。


宾尼法官指出，国会「日渐关注」，受担保移民的财政负担转移到政府肩上。

他说，政府确实有些自决权，可以考虑担保人的特定困难状况。但法官也指出，受担保移民开始领取社会福利，政府应尽快通知担保人，以免担保人不知债务累积。但最终担保人仍需负责，保证他们的亲人不会依赖社会福利。

有关裁决不影响难民申请者

周五裁决不影响难民申请人，他们与家庭团聚申请人分开处理。200万名永久居民1997年至2007年抵加，其中61.5万人或27%属于家庭类别。

不良新移民领救济 担保人应负责

图为一名行人23日步行经过最高法院。(加通社)

(世界日报)依照联邦最高法院10日的终审裁定，「不良新移民」领取的政府救济金，担保人要承担。

加拿大联邦最高法院10日作出终审裁定，联邦和省级政府有权向团聚移民担保人追讨「不良新移民」(rogue new immigrants)领取的政府救济金(社会福利金)。

这个裁定涉及安省八个团聚移民担保人案例，这些担保人把亲属、配偶或未婚配偶担保来加拿大，後者抵加不久之後就开始向政府申领救济金。

加拿大移民法规定，担保人有义务偿还被担保的新移民在加领取的任何救济金。

八个安省担保人曾经以身陷各种困境为由，向法院申诉，试图躲避偿还此款的义务，且获得安省上诉法院支持。

联邦最高法院10日推翻了安省上诉法院的判决，10位法官的一致裁定，这八名担保人必须各向安省政府偿还1万元至9万4000元不等的金额。

最高法院法官宾尼(Ian Binnie)代表10位法官在裁定书中指出∶「不良新移民产生的风险原本就应该由担保人承担，而非由纳税人(政府)承担┅┅政府在追讨欠款时拥有某些裁量权，譬如可以与担保人商议还款的时限和方式，但毕竟这个裁量权有限，没有足够的权力放弃追讨这些欠款。」

八名安省担保人在法庭上以各种理由诉说自己的处境，譬如，有人说因家暴分离，有人说突然失业，另外则是其未婚妻或配偶抵埠後乾脆离开并随即向政府领取救济金。

八名担保人2008年向安省高等法院上诉，要求法院支持他们，以避免支付安省政府要追讨的款项。

安省高等法院驳回他们的请求。法官在裁定中指出，充当团聚移民的担保人，事实上属於一种合约，担保人从一开始就明白自己要为受担保的亲属承担经济上的责任及义务。

但安省上诉法院2009年推翻了安省高院的裁定，要求安省政府对八名担保人逐个区别对待，将每个人的处境纳入追讨款项的条件。

宾尼10日在做出裁定时指出，团聚类移民中出现的把经济负担从担保人转嫁给政府的现象，很让国会担心。他说∶「团聚类移民的先决条件是∶是担保人而非政府，必须负担新移民(被担保人)的所有需求，以换取他们进入加拿大的准入证┅┅担保人承担的这些责任都是白纸黑字写在文书上，他们从一开始就应该知道任何违约行为均可能产生严重的经济後果。」

在加拿大1997年至2007年接纳的约200万永久居民中，团聚类移民约61万5000人，占了27%。

 

[ccc]

支持.... 否则，担保10年不就成了一纸空文。

 

[陨石]

 

[ccc]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...y-welfare-supreme-court-rules/article2055571/

Sponsors of 'rogue' immigrants must repay welfare, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of federal and provincial governments to collect social-service payments from the sponsors of immigrants.

The landmark ruling involves the cases of eight Ontario immigrant families that sponsored relatives from abroad, and who later went on social assistance.

Under federal immigration law, the sponsors agreed to repay any welfare payments that their new arrivals may have incurred after they got to Canada.

The high court, in a unanimous 9-0 ruling, overturned an earlier Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the sponsors, all of whom claimed various hardships.

The individual cases involved repayments of $10,000 to $94,000 in social assistance to the Ontario government.

“The risk of a rogue relative properly lies on the sponsor, not the taxpayer,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote Friday on behalf of the court.

The court said governments have limited discretion to delay collection of defaulted payments, but not to totally forgive the debts.

“The discretion enables the governments to delay enforcement action having regard to the sponsor's circumstances and to enter into agreements respecting terms of payment, but not simply to forgive the statutory debt,” wrote Justice Binnie.

“In the exercise of this discretion, which Parliament has made clear is narrow in scope, the Crown is bound by a duty of procedural fairness. The content of this duty is fairly minimal.”

The government is obliged to notify a sponsor that they are in default, and allow them an opportunity to explain their financial circumstances.

“This is a purely administrative process. It is a matter of debt collection.”

In the eight individual cases before the court, the reasons the sponsors gave for not paying included leaving an abusive relationship and losing their own job. In a couple of cases, the fiancée or spouse of the sponsor simply took off after arriving in Canada and began collecting social services.

The sponsors filed motions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2008 to defer or avoid entirely making payments back to the provincial government.

The court rejected their argument, saying that sponsorship undertakings are in fact contracts, and that the sponsors understood they were assuming financial liability for their family members.

In 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and said governments may exercise a case-by-case discretion not to collect. It noted that the law states money “may” be recovered.

The provincial appeal court ruled the government owes sponsors a duty of procedural fairness, entitling them to a process in which they can explain their circumstances.

The Supreme Court ruled that standard of procedural fairness was met in each of the eight cases.

“We are dealing here with ordinary debt, not a government benefits or licensing program,” said Justice Binnie.

He noted that Parliament has become “increasingly concerned” about the financial burden that is being shifted to the public treasury to financially support sponsored relatives in immigrant families.

“Family reunification is based on the essential condition that in exchange for admission to this country the needs of the immigrant will be looked after by the sponsor, not by the public purse,” Justice Binnie wrote.

“Sponsors undertake these obligations in writing. They understand or ought to understand from the outset that default may have serious financial consequences for them.”

Justice Binnie said the government does have some discretion when it comes to considering the specific hardships of sponsors.

“It would hardly promote ‘successful integration' to require individuals to remain in abusive relationships. Nor would the attempted enforcement of a debt against individuals without means to pay further the interest of ‘Canadian society',” he wrote.

“Excessively harsh treatment of defaulting sponsors may risk discouraging others from bringing their relatives to Canada, which would undermine the policy of promoting family reunification.”

Justice Binnie said the government should notify sponsors as soon as their relatives begin receiving welfare payments so debts don't build up without them knowing. But ultimately the sponsors are responsible for keeping their relatives from becoming dependent on social programs.

“Nonetheless, it is inherent in the sponsor's support obligation that the sponsor is to keep track of the sponsored relative he or she has undertaken to support. Family class immigrants are admitted solely on the basis of their relationship to the sponsor.”

Friday's ruling does not affect refugee claimants, which are treated separately from family reunification applicants.

Of the two million permanent residents that were admitted to Canada between 1997 and 2007, about 615,000, or 27 per cent, were under the family class.

 

[wiiwii]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?:blink:

 

[ccc]

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33520

SCC Case Information
Summary
33520
Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, et al.
(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords
Statutes.

Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

Legislation - Interpretation - Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 - Sponsors of family class immigrants must undertake to repay government for amount of any social assistance received by sponsored relative during sponsorship period - Immigration and Refugee Protection Act stating that debt “may be recovered” by federal or provincial government - Whether Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides a discretion to enforce sponsorship debt - Whether there is a duty of procedural fairness on both the federal and provincial government before they can exercise any rights to recover sponsorship debt - Whether, if there is a duty of fairness, the government is required to do more than to provide notice that it intended to exercise its rights to recover the debt.

Each of the eight respondents sponsored a relative who was a member of the family class for immigration into Canada. The respondents each signed undertakings to the Government of Canada confirming that they would support the sponsored relatives and would repay any social assistance benefits that were paid to their sponsored relatives by the government. Each respondent’s sponsored relative received social assistance payments from Ontario during their sponsorship periods. Ontario attempted to recover these payments from the sponsors under but all of the sponsors defaulted on the debts. The respondents applied for numerous declarations to be relieved of the obligation to pay the debts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for the declarations. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal and entered declarations stating that Canada and Ontario have a case by case discretion whether to enforce sponsorship debt, that Ontario fettered its discretion by adopting policies that are inconsistent with the provisions of the family class immigration regime, that Canada and Ontario owe sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt and that the duty of procedural fairness includes the obligation to provide a process for explaining relevant personal and financial circumstances, the obligation to consider those circumstances and the obligation to inform that submissions have been considered and of the decision that was made.

 

[ccc]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?:blink:

你是说“新移民领福利”没错？

 

[wiiwii]

SHOOT,忘了,鱼4能看懂你那长篇的英文吗?:flaming:

 

[ccc]

SHOOT,忘了,鱼4能看懂你那长篇的英文吗?:flaming:

呵。

不是给他做参考的。

我是觉得中文原文个别地方看着累。

 

[wiiwii]

你是说“新移民领福利”没错？

TNND,装白痴啊:flaming:

 

[ccc]

TNND,装白痴啊:flaming:

我看不懂啊。我也觉得你没有那么白痴啊。:flaming::blink:

 

[wiiwii]

我看不懂啊。我也觉得你没有那么白痴啊。:flaming::blink:

你以为我和鱼四一样生活在MOTHERLAND啊?
BTW你碰到过么?我好几次想在国内网站上看视屏,给个信息,说只有在MOTHERLAND的才可以看,WHAT THE HELL 啊?:flaming:


/

 

[ccc]

你以为我和鱼四一样生活在MOTHERLAND啊?
BTW你碰到过么?我好几次在国内网站上看视屏,给个信息,说只有在MOTHERLAND的才可以看,WHAT THE HELL 啊?:flaming:


/

F4居住在哪里,你都知道啊?

 

[wiiwii]

F4居住在哪里,你都知道啊?

连T4都不知道的,你说在哪里啊?:blink::blink::blink:

 

[ccc村长]

连T4都不知道的,你说在哪里啊?:blink::blink::blink:

老人移民....