Winter Activities:

• Outdoor skating and hockey
• Tobogganing
• Ski resorts
• Hockey Hall of Fame
• St. John’s northern lights and whale watching
• Outdoor nature walks
• Toronto’s Gingerbread Festival
• Music Festivals/ performances
• Christmas and New year parades

However, all seasons in Canada provide endless opportunities to enjoy beaches, museums, art galleries, professional sports games, festive exhibits, and nature and various other sightseeing spots. Beaches, such as Wasaga and Woodbine, located at the southern end of Ontario’s Georgian Bay, are popularly known for their soft white sand, nature paths and trails, and nearby towns or cities. In addition, Canada has galleries and exhibits of all sorts that allow individuals to come together and express their creativity, as well as to admire others’ works of art on display.

The warm springs and hot summers leave plenty of outdoor adventures and activities within Canada. Whether it is joining an outdoor sports’ league, sightseeing, or a night out in the city, Canada has plenty to offer. Two of the most famous sightseeing spots most commonly visited are Niagara Falls, with its beautiful scenery and town, and the CN Tower, which provides a breathtaking view of the city of Toronto. Welcoming immigrants from all around the world, Canada is a multicultural country, providing a sample of countless different cultures.

Summer and Other Fun Activities:

Museums

• Royal Ontario Museum
• Bay of Spirits Gallery
• Art Gallery of Ontario
• Ontario Science Centre
• Hockey Hall of Fame

Sports related activities

• Toronto Football Club game, Toronto
• Blue Jays game
• Zip lining in Montreal
• Tree or rock climbing
• Community races
• Biking in nature and city pathways

Famous sightseeing spots

• Niagara Falls
• Canadian National Exhibition
• Algonquin Park

Other fun activities

• Clubbing
• Restaurants
• Concerts

The post Things to do in Canada, 2023 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Each immigration category has different processing times, and the table below breaks down the number of months it took the IRCC to finalize applications in each immigration category. 

The shortest processing time is for the Canadian Experience Class applicants (CEC), at an average of 7 months for both 2020 and 2021. CEC applicants must have over a year of full-time skilled Canadian work experience or 1560 hours of part-time skilled Canadian working experience, and with CEC applications having the shortest processing time, successful individuals are able to contribute to Canada’s economy relatively quickly. The longest processing time in 2021 was for the Caregiver category, with majority of applications being finalized at 29 months.  

Generally, the processing times for each category increased from 2020 to 2021 – Caregiver saw an increase of 10 months while Federal Skilled and Trade saw a notable increase of 13 months. Ministerial Instruction Economic Programs and SPC shared an increase of 3 months in 2021.  

Notably, IRCC’s attempts at combatting the backlog and expediting processing times may help explain the 9-month decrease in H&C, Other, Public Policy processing times.   

This table helps breakdown the processing times over the last two years. While there are significant changes in some categories, and no change at all in others, the present research shows interesting statistics that could change how people wanting to immigrate to Canada might explore other avenues and applications as a means of getting here. 

The post IRCC Processing Times  first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

On 16 November 2022, IRCC switched from the old 2016 NOC to the new version of 2021 NOC, which will be used for all applicants across the board and have an impact on the permanent residence applicants who are processed under the Express Entry (EE) system. 

The new 2021 NOC, prepared by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Statistics Canada, takes into consideration the changes taking place in the labour sector and it involves a deep analysis of all the market factors, research and analysis over a few years, consultations with occupation specialists, public and employers. 

NOC determines the eligibility criteria under IRCC’s temporary and permanent residency programs. The 2016 NOC that was used by IRCC until 16 November 2022 was structured at 5 levels: 0, A, B, C and D and had 4-digit codes.  

The previous NOC system allowed applicants for permanent residence (PR) (EE programs), to choose their NOC level from 3 categories: 0 (zero – managerial), A (professionals) or B (college/trades educated).  NOC C and/or D applicants were eligible through one of the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNP) streams, run by each province.  

The 2021 NOC is structured with 6 teers, that represent the training, education, experience and responsibilities needed to work in those occupations – and has a 5-digit code; 

Equivalency between the two NOC systems is below. 

Due to the re-assignment of the NOC codes, 16 occupations that previously were not eligible for PR under the Express Entry, are now eligible as the NOC code is now at Teer 2 or 3, instead of the equivalent of NOC level C or D as they were classified before. The 16 occupations that qualify now for EE under the new NOC: 

• payroll administrators (previously in 2016, NOC 1432, current NOC 13102 teer 3); 
• dental assistants and dental laboratory assistants (NOC 3411 vs Teer 3 NOC 33100); 
• nurse aides, orderlies and patient service associates 
• pharmacy technical assistants and pharmacy assistants 
• elementary and secondary school teacher assistants 
• sheriffs and bailiffs 
• correctional service officers 
• by-law enforcement and other regulatory officers 
• estheticians, electrologists and related occupations 
• residential and commercial installers and servicers 
• pest controllers and fumigators 
• other repairers and servicers 
• transport truck drivers 
• bus drivers, subway operators and other transit operators 
• heavy equipment operators 
• aircraft assemblers and aircraft assembly inspectors 

Three previously eligible occupations became ineligible under the new 2021 NOC: 

• Other performers 
• Program leaders and instructors in recreation, sport, and fitness
• Tailors, dressmakers, furriers, and milliners 

The new NOC creates 16 more unit groups than the previous 2016 NOC system and some occupations have been split according to the duties performed in new coded occupations. One must check the duties in detail to establish their correct NOC code under the new system.  

If you need any help with establishing your NOC code, please feel free to contact us. 

Thank you. 

The post National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2021: What you Need to Know  first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

If you would like to discuss your eligibility with a member from our legal team, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #118 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on May 29th, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

To book a consultation, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #116 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on May 1st, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

To book a consultation, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #115 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on April 17th, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

To book a consultation, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #114 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on April 3rd, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

To book a consultation, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #113 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on March 20th, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

We argued this determination was based in the Applicant’s arguments upon unforeseeable credibility concerns (he would not leave, course of study, gap in schooling) which were not put to the Applicant and to which the Applicant was not given an opportunity to respond and factual errors unsupported by the record.  The Applicant also argued the Officer failed to properly assess important, credible, and highly relevant evidence including the ESL course he was taking was a compulsory requirement of admission to his program of study in Canada, he could not take another ESL course at a different location, why he was resuming studies later in life, his dual intention, the course of study was linked to his previous study and his significant ties to his home country. In all, the Applicant was of the view he presented an application that was complete and met all legal requirements.

It is well established in law when considering a study permit application, immigration officers have discretion in assessing the evidence and arriving at a decision. However, the decision must contain reasonable findings of fact based on an analysis of relevant evidence. It is trite law that a decision that runs contrary to the evidence is unreasonable.[2]

The Respondent argued the concerns arose from the legislative requirements and it was an insufficiency of evidence finding and reasonable.  There was no procedural breach, no right to an interview and the Applicant was simply disagreeing with the weight assigned by the Officer to the evidence.  Although there may have been other options open to the Officer the negative finding based upon this rational was still within the range of reasonable outcomes.  The Court did not agree and the Honourable Justice Grammond determined the decson was unreasonable.[3]

This case in my view is a good reminder that these applications should not be based upon generalizations and stereotypes but upon an applicant’s individualized circumstances.[4] So, in these types of circumstances suspicions, stereotypes, generalizations or whatever the description have no place. Simply put, the Applicant’s 250 plus page application for a study permit was complete and met all legal requirements and he was owed the opportunity to have his individual circumstances considered.  Anything less is not reasonable and the Federal Court agreed.

For a more detailed discussion of this stage please subscribe to Immquest in our publications section – click here

For more information on applying for a study permit or challenging a refusal please contact us

Thank you for reading.

Sources

The post Study Permit Cases Should Be Decided on Individual Factors and Not Stereotypes or Generalizations first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

For more information on Express Entry, please click here.

To book your consultation, please click here.

The post Express Entry Draw #111 Results: 3,350 Invitations Issued on Feb 20th, 2019 first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.