English

Disabled girl's family fights order to leave (Monday, February 22, 2010)

23 February 2010

Letter to the Editor
The Globe and Mail

CCD Chairperson's Update: February 2010

Everyday A New Issue

This month at CCD we have seen it all, ranging from a positive decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Hughes case where CCD had Interested Party status to faxed hate mail as a result of our media work on the Barlagne case. These two very disparate responses to CCD's initiatives, demonstrate the critical importance of the work that our organizations undertake in support of an inclusive and accessible Canada.

MPs Back to Work to Tackle Unfinished Business

3 March 2010

For immediate release

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is pleased that Members of Parliament are back to work. Now the Government of Canada can make good on a commitment made on 3 December 2009: Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Disability Group Challenges Canada on 'Excessive Burden': $5,259

24 February 2010

For immediate release

Immigration officials contend that paying $5,259 per year for Rachel Barlagne's education would be an excessive burden on Canada, so they are ordering her family to leave Montreal and abandon the life and business they are building in their adopted country.

Immigration and Disability

4 March 2009

 

TO: All Members of Parliament

RE: Immigration and Disability


CCD seeks to keep you informed on issues of concern to persons with disabilities. In 2008, we forwarded you three articles—a short piece on our National Action Plan on Disability, an overview of our concerns related to the Robert Latimer case and an article highlighting the issue of disability and immigration.

Covarrubias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FCA 365 (F.C.A.)

Facts

This appeal focused on the interpretation s. 97(1)(b)(iv) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which excludes refugee protection from a risk to life caused by the “inability [of a claimant’s country of nationality] to provide adequate health or medical care.”

Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1841

Facts

The Applicant applied under the "entrepreneur" category prior to June 2002, and, although he was found to qualify, he was found to be inadmissible, pursuant to s. 38(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On the basis of medical evidence, the Officer found that Mr. Lee’s health conditions, which included polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, moderate mitral regurgitation and chronic renal failure, would reasonably be expected to cause "excessive demands" on Canada's health services.

Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57

Facts

The Hilewitz Family

David Hilewitz of South Africa applied for permanent residence in Canada under the investor category. Mr. Hilewitz’s son, Gavin, was diagnosed with an intellectual disability. Gavin was examined by a medical officer and due to his disability, was deemed inadmissible under s. 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act. It was found that Gavin would require use of a variety of social services and special education.

Disability & Immigration Law in the United States of America

Immigration Rules

Immigration to the United States of America is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Syndicate content