Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'permit'.
Found 4 results
Having read of so many horrible experiences with immigration laws and officers, I always thought those things only happened to those who did not do their paperwork right or who did not meet the immigration requirements. Apparently I was wrong. My experience is nothing compared to the one of the Mexican mother who's all over the news lately, but what makes my case interesting is that the law is clearly on my side, and so are the Citizenship and Immigration Canada agents, yet there doesn't seem to be anything I or they can do about it, and I have to leave Canada soon with no right of appeal. I am not writing for advice, but advice is always appreciated. Here is my experience: My study permit was set to expire on August 31st. As recommended by the immigration website, I submitted an application for a new study permit on July 26th, more than 30 days before the expiry date. It often happens that the study permit expires before the new application is approved or rejected, so one is left without a valid study permit for an interval of time. During this time, one is said to have "implied status" and is allowed to travel out and into Canada as a temporary resident until a decision is made, as long as one has a multiple entry visa. This was my case, and I did travel outside of Canada during my implied status period, but the Canada Border Services agent who welcomed me at Trudeau Airport didn't seem to know the law very well (I didn't either), and only allowed me to stay in Canada for "further examination of my file". He also seized my passport and immigration documents and told me I had to leave Canada by September 30th if my new study permit had not been approved by then. I kept checking daily for updates on my application status with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They repeatedly told me that my study permit was to be approved (or rejected) by the end of October. But I never told them about my situation at the Border Agency. Today I decided to call the Border Agency Office at Trudeau Airport to see if I could extend the September 30th deadline. A person who sounded like the same officer who seized my documents insisted that I should leave by September 30th before proceeding to threaten me with deportation and jail if I didn't leave Canada (I must add that I was never rude to him or any other agent. I didn't even contradict what he said). I asked him if I could at least return temporarily as a tourist, since I have a multiple-entry visitor's visa. He said that was illegal (it is not) and if I tried to do that, I would be denied entry to Canada for one year. He said he would write a note on my file to ensure this was done. After this call and a few seconds digesting the horrible feeling, I decided to call Citizenship and Immigration Canada to tell them what had happened. The call center agent who spoke with me was really nice. She asked me to calm down and reassured me. She spoke with two advisors and they all insisted that I should be allowed to stay in Canada due to my implied status, as long as I didn't see any university courses (which I'm not, as I am just working on my PhD thesis). She expressed a lot of concern at the fact that the Border Agent took my passport and tried to call them without success (line was busy the whole day after my call). She then instructed me to send the Border Agency a fax quoting the laws that protect me and asking them to call me on my phone to resolve my situation. I did this and they ignored this fax. I am sure if I call them again, the same will happen, and they will get even more hostile. Right now I see no option other than going to the US for a month. This doesn't seem like such a bad thing except for some extremely important personal plans I had for this month in Canada. In my short 25 years of existence so far I've had to spend the night in a restroom being completely sober, spend days sleeping on a chair for bureaucratic reasons, and I've had to make big changes on my future because of late paperwork. I guess these things happen to everyone and I've never complained about them, but I can't help but feel powerless and violated in this situation. It almost makes me think bad of Canada, but my mind is not sufficiently weak.
n'y a t il pas de reglements a montreal par rapport a la facon de se stationner ? je fais reference ici surtout aux gens qui occupent deux espaces de par la facon dont ils sont positionnes. avec si peu d'espace de stationnement dans certains secteurs de la ville, peut-etre que cette derniere pourrait etablir certaines balises pour determiner ce qui constitueraient un positionnement interdit, quitte a simplement apposer des lignes dans la rue pour indiquer les endroits ou il est permit de garer sa voiture.
Westmount building plans hush-hush Court testimony. Westmount neighbours battle over scenic view JAN RAVENSBERGEN, The Gazette Published: 6 hours ago Anytime a Westmount homeowner wants to renovate part of a building or add an extension, their plans are considered confidential - and not the business of any of their neighbours. That's longtime Westmount policy, architect Julia Gersovitz, chairperson since 2001 of the municipality's powerful planning advisory committee, testified in Quebec Superior Court yesterday. Other than Westmount urban-planning staff, city councillors and the mayor, "we at the (advisory committee) do not discuss the cases that are brought to us with anyone because it seems to us that would be a breach of confidentiality," Gersovitz told Justice Robert Mongeon. Two other architects and city councillor Cynthia Lulham sit with Gersovitz on the committee, which she told the court operates by consensus, never takes votes and is responsible for vetting all proposed building-exterior work that requires a municipal permit. Gersovitz is a historic-preservation specialist who is a longtime board member of Heritage Montreal, a practising architect and an auxiliary professor of design at McGill University. A green light her committee gave last March to homeowner Steven Goldberg to add another storey to his home at 27 Bellevue Ave., near the top of Mount Royal, did not require any consultation with nearby homeowners whose panoramic views of Montreal, the St. Lawrence River and the Montérégie vista would be affected, Gersovitz testified. "We have no mechanism for that," she told the court. In a case that has aroused considerable interest, Mongeon has been asked by Mireille Raymond, of 20 Sunnyside Ave., to quash Goldberg's permit. A higher roofline, Raymond contends, would substantially destroy her south-facing view of the city and environs. Hearings on the case continue today. In a related development, at an 8 a.m. council meeting yesterday, councillors Nicole Forbes and John de Castell reversed positions they'd taken Aug. 25 - and voted in favour of a modified version of the permit for Goldberg which would allow him his extra storey. The council vote was 5-2 in favour. On Aug. 25, a similar motion had been defeated 4-3. While de Castell complained about missing information earlier in the Goldberg permit process, he told council that "from everything that I've learned in this file, it (the Goldberg permit) appears to be legal." [email protected]