Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker Pilot: Admissibility

This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by IRCC staff. It is posted on the department’s website as a courtesy to stakeholders.

Determining admissibility

The principal applicant and their family members, whether accompanying or not, must undergo criminal and security checks and medical examinations. An officer will assess these admissibility requirements after the applicant has satisfied select eligibility criteria and either of the following:

after all of the eligibility criteria have been met, including work experience, where the applicant has provided proof of at least 24 months of qualifying work experience in their initial application (Category B – straight-to PR)
before the applicant is issued an occupation-restricted open work permit (OROWP), where the applicant has applied with less than 24 months of qualifying work experience (Category A – TR-to-PR – stage 1)
- The officer must ensure the applicant and family members, whether accompanying or not, are still admissible to Canada at the time that the applicant provides proof of obtaining 24 months of qualifying work experience, prior to granting permanent resident status. This may require additional medical examinations (if they have expired) and additional police checks.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit police certificates up front with their application. However, should the police certificates not be included, the processing office must request a police certificate for the applicant’s current country of residence as well as one for any country where they have lived for 6 consecutive months or more since the age of 18. See How to get a police certificate for more information.

Inadmissibility for financial reasons [section A39]

Settlement funds are not an eligibility requirement of the Home Child Care Provider (HCCP) and Home Support Worker (HSW) pilots and do not need to be assessed. However, as with all permanent and temporary residence categories, caregivers must not be inadmissible, including for financial reasons as per section 39 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

If there are concerns that an individual may not be able or is unwilling to support themselves and their dependants without the use of social assistance, the officer may request further information from the applicant, including information about dependants who are listed on the application, regardless of whether they are accompanying right away or at all. For individuals applying under Category A, there is no requirement to reassess financial admissibility closer to the landing stage (when the principal applicant has submitted proof of work experience), unless there are indications of a serious concern.

The overall decision should always be based on a holistic assessment including the principal applicant’s income, any other anticipated family revenue in Canada, all possible sources of assistance available to the principal applicant (excluding social assistance), and any arrangements the applicant has made.

Officers should keep in mind that the program was designed to respond to specific vulnerability concerns and prevent long-term family separation by allowing family members to accompany the caregiver to Canada, with the understanding that the caregiver if often a low-wage position. The financial inadmissibility ground should be used only when there are very serious concerns on the unwillingness or inability of the caregiver to support their family other than relying on social assistance.

In cases where continued concerns constitute complexity or may require an interview, the application may be referred in full or as an activity to the Domestic Network (DN) or International Network (IN).

Examining the applicant’s ability and willingness to support themselves and their dependants [section A39]

Per section 7.21 of the enforcement manual on inadmissibility (PDF 620 KB), the officer may obtain evidence for section A39 by collecting a statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer. While additional evidence could be requested on an ad hoc basis where concerns exist, for example in the case of an extraordinary large family, however this should not be a systematized request. This includes evidence of

the person’s current financial situation
the likelihood that they will have access to funds
what arrangements, if any, have been made for their care and support

Relevant factors to consider in determining an applicant’s financial admissibility may include the following:

current financial situation
likelihood of access to funds
living arrangements

Current financial situation

Together with other relevant factors, officers may consider the funds that applicants have available to them (for example, by way of a declaration or financial documentation, at an officer’s discretion) in determining whether they are able to financially support themselves and their dependants in Canada.

Caregivers are not subject to any specific settlement fund requirements, and as such do not have to meet a specific threshold of income, savings, or funds accessible to them; rather they need only demonstrate that they are not inadmissible. A39 is designed to exclude persons intending to live or who are living on social assistance and to prevent the abuse of Canada’s social services systems.

Likelihood of access to funds

Officers may assess the likelihood that the applicant will have access to funds by taking into consideration the wages specified in the job offer, and the prevailing wage in the province where the applicant intends to reside.

Consideration should also be given on the likelihood of supporting income from the accompanying spouse or dependant(s) at age of majority on an open work permit. When assessing the applicant’s ability to financially support themselves and their dependants, officers may take into account whether the applicant’s spouse or dependants will contribute by considering their

transferable skills
education
work experience

Officers may elect to consult measures such as the Low Income Cut-Offs (LICO), which can serve as a reasonable indicator, though not a determining factor. In this case, the LICO relative to the community size where the caregiver is living/intends to be living should be used.

The presence of family ties in or close to an applicant’s city of destination can also have a positive impact on their financial situation.

LICO serves as a reasonable indicator of an applicant’s likely ability to financially support themselves and their family.

Living arrangements

Officers may take into consideration the principal applicant’s living arrangements. If the applicant will be living in the employer’s home or with family or friends, this may allow them more financial flexibility to support themselves and their accompanying dependants.

Making a decision on the applicant’s ability and willingness to support themselves [section A39]

As with any other immigration application, financial inadmissibility grounds should only be used to refuse applications when there are serious concerns (on a balance of probabilities – see notes under the segment on A39 in ENF1 section 3 (PDF 621 KB)) on the ability or willingness of the caregiver to support themselves or any other person who is dependent on them, or if the officer is not satisfied that adequate arrangement for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.

In making a determination with respect to an applicant’s financial admissibility, officers must consider the totality of the information on file and all submissions made on a given case.

In all cases where the officer is leaning on refusing for inadmissibility under section A39, a procedural fairness letter (PFL) should lay out the concerns and the applicant must be provided an opportunity to respond.

Refusals on the basis of financial inadmissibility pursuant to section A39 must be documented in Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes. Officers should include

the principal applicant’s income
any other anticipated family revenue in Canada
all possible sources of assistance available to the principal applicant
any arrangements the applicant has made

The officer’s notes should clearly explain all the factors they have considered in making their determination with respect to the applicant’s financial admissibility. The officer must clearly explain why they are not satisfied as to the adequacy of the applicant’s financial resources and arrangements.

Inadmissibility for non-compliance [section A41]

Out-of-status

Not having valid status (or being ineligible to restore status) while in Canada means that an applicant is inadmissible for non-compliance as per A41.

While the Ministerial Instructions 32 (MI32) for these caregiver pilots do not include temporary resident status as a specific eligibility requirement at time of application, all of the inadmissibility provisions in the Act apply, including provisions on non-compliance in A41 (as well as inadmissibility on grounds of an inadmissible family member as per A42 if dependant is out of status).

Note that as per the Ministerial Instructions (MIs), the required work experience must have been authorized and gained while the applicant had temporary resident status.

Procedures at Case Processing Centre-Edmonton (CPC-E)

As per standard procedure, out-of-status applicants should be referred to the appropriate DN local IRCC office, including the reason for referral.

Procedures at Domestic Network (DN)

As with most PR applications (including those created under 14.1(1) MIs), a delegated officer may consider granting an exemption based on H&C considerations on the officer’s own initiative. If the applicant has requested H&C, the officer must give it consideration and reflect this in the case notes.

The length of time that the applicant was out-of-status and the circumstances surrounding it, as well as any enforcement actions that have already been taken, can also be considered by the officer in determining whether H&C should be granted, together with other H&C elements that the applicant includes. The fact that an applicant otherwise already meets all eligibility requirements, including complete work experience, can also be factored in.

Additionally, for Category A stage 1, A22(2) (dual intent) and R200(1)(b) must also be assessed. The officer must be satisfied that the foreign national, and any accompanying dependants, will leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay, in the event that their PR application be ultimately refused. Their lack of status and the fact that they have overstayed should also be considered.

Positive H&C:

If the officer grants an H&C exemption from the requirement not to be inadmissible for non-compliance and renders a positive decision, upon the client’s request or on their own initiative, and approves the application, the case should proceed as per established procedures.

Note: if the officer is of the opinion that an exemption is warranted for the PR application, a bridging open work permit (BOWP) or an occupation-restricted open work permit (OROWP) should not be issued unless the officer is of the opinion that a temporary resident permit (TRP) is also justified, especially in the case of the OROWP.

In the exceptional case that an officer were to pass eligibility for a Category A stage 1 applicant who is out of status and has not yet gathered the required experience, the OROWP is to be coded under R207 (LMIA exemption code A70).
For Category B or Category A stage 2 applicants, the bridging open work permit is to be coded as usual.
After the eligibility has been passed, the H&C waiver for A41 should be entered in the HCCP/HSW application under Other reqs; notes should be added to explain the reasons behind the H&C.

No H&C assessment or negative H&C:

If H&C has either not been requested by the client, not initiated on an officer’s own initiative, or an officer assesses H&C factors and determines that it is not warranted, the officer should send a procedural fairness letter (PFL), including the out-of-status or any other inadmissibility concerns as well as any other concerns related to failing to meet the eligibility requirements of the pilot, where applicable.

Following procedural fairness, if concerns remained:

Refusal letter: it should specify all applicable refusal grounds, including for having failed to comply with the requirements of IRPA (inadmissible under A41(a) for non-compliance with paragraph A20(1)(b)) (or if it is the family member that is out of status, then A42)
Enforcement measures: The officer should determine if an A44 report should be issued, as per standard procedures. For more information, refer to ENF 5, Writing 44(1) Reports (PDF, 1.4 MB).

If concerns have been addressed (for example, it is possible that the client will have left Canada and is no longer in a situation of lack of compliance):

Officers should continue processing as per established procedures.

Processing family members [section A42]

Applicants cannot be granted permanent residence or an occupation-restricted open work permit under the Home Child Care Provider or Home Support Worker pilots if they or any of their family members are found to be inadmissible.

Ineligible and inadmissible family members

The procedures for the Home Child Care Provider or Home Support Worker pilots are the same as the Live-in Caregiver Program for

Language selection

Search