actually the court said nothing about him paying taxes. they gave him benefits based on “the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada”
basically says if you come here and hide out illegally for long enough, we’ll give you welfare. terrible precedent to set
they gave him benefits based on “the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada”
Yes, because
Brown said those definitions show the applicant reasonably fell outside the meaning of both tourist and visitor, “given the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada.”
No evidence was presented at the tribunal that he had been ordered out of Canada by federal immigration authorities.
Therefore, he did not fit into the three categories that are excluded from eligibility with respect to immigration status and he was eligible.
I remember when Harris brought in this legislation. What an incredible self own lol.
actually the court said nothing about him paying taxes. they gave him benefits based on “the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada”
basically says if you come here and hide out illegally for long enough, we’ll give you welfare. terrible precedent to set
Yes, because
Therefore, he did not fit into the three categories that are excluded from eligibility with respect to immigration status and he was eligible.
I remember when Harris brought in this legislation. What an incredible self own lol.
you know what, y’all are right
pay the man
Lobster bucket mentality strikes again.