Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi: Who Should Pay if Hardship Strikes?

4 Pages Posted: 22 Nov 2011 Last revised: 29 Nov 2011

See all articles by Ajit Singh

Ajit Singh

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School

Date Written: July 10, 2011

Abstract

In the recent Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504 ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court held that sponsors of immigrants to Canada under the family class must pay for any government social assistance given to the sponsored immigrant. Nevertheless, the government owes a duty of procedural fairness to the sponsor, albeit the content being 'fairly minimal', and such payments may be deferred (but not forgiven) subject to government’s discretion in assessing individual circumstances.

The decision, while providing a certain level of discretion to the government to in considering sponsor’s circumstances, nevertheless may lead to troubling circumstances in some cases.

As posted on The Court, Osgoode Hall Law School.

Keywords: Supreme Court of Canada, immigration, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , Constitutional law, Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi

Suggested Citation

Singh, Ajit, Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi: Who Should Pay if Hardship Strikes? (July 10, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1963106 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1963106

Ajit Singh (Contact Author)

York University - Osgoode Hall Law School ( email )

4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3
Canada

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
90
Abstract Views
615
Rank
513,029
PlumX Metrics