Regulations Amending The Immigration And Refugee Protection Regulations


1. Paragraph (b) of the definition “dependent child” in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

  • (b) is in one of the following situations of dependency, namely,
    • (i) is less than 19 years of age and is not a spouse or common-law partner, or
    • (ii) is 19 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 19 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.


14. These Regulations come into force on August 1, 2014.

To read the entire piece, click here.


(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)


Dependent children of selected immigrants are admitted on the basis of their relationship to the principal applicant in all immigration classes (economic, family, and refugee/humanitarian). As well, dependent children may be sponsored in the family class. Dependent children represent 30% of the overall immigrants admitted annually to Canada. Statistics demonstrate that older dependent children (those who arrive between the ages of 19 and 21) have lower economic outcomes over the long run than those who arrive in Canada at a younger age (between 15 and 18 years old). (see footnote 2)

Government and academic research has demonstrated that older immigrants have a more challenging time fully integrating into the Canadian labour market; this is more evident for immigrants who are not selected based on their own merits (e.g. dependent children). (see footnote 3)

While Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has tightened the selection criteria of economic migrants over the years, little consideration has been given to the role of younger dependent children, who have better social and economic integration outcomes.

In sum, the current definition of a dependent child for immigration purposes is out of step with the Government of Canada’s objective of selecting migrants who contribute best to Canada’s economic growth and sustainability.

Furthermore, the current allowance for older dependent children who are pursuing full-time studies to accompany principal applicants creates significant challenges and inefficiencies in processing applications. The verification of attendance and enrolment is both labour-intensive and vulnerable to fraud. Processing applications of older children who indicate that they are full-time students is time-consuming for visa offices because of the need to verify such factors as the nature of the educational institutions, school records, and claims of full-time attendance.

Additionally, the expanded eligibility for full-time students can allow those who are well into their late 20s or even 30s to come to Canada as dependent children, despite weaker integration, and weaker long-term economic performance outcomes. In addition to the above, there are currently inconsistencies in the procedures CIC uses to lock in (or “freeze”) the age of a dependent child at a specified point in time during the application process.

Current age lock-in procedures for the family and refugee streams are broadly described in the Regulations (sections 121, 128 and 142 respectively) and further clarified in operational manuals (OP2 — Processing Members of the Family Class, IP8 — Spouse and Common-law Partner In Canada Class, and OP5 — Overseas Selection and Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad Class and Members of the Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad Classes). Age lock-in procedures for the economic stream (including provincial and territorial nominee programs and Quebec economic programs) are expressed in operational manuals only.

For all permanent resident applications except those submitted under Quebec economic programs, CIC locks in the age of a dependent child at the date that CIC receives a complete application for permanent residence. A complete application is one that is made in writing using the form provided by the Department, signed by the applicant, including all information and documentation required by the Regulations and other evidence required by the Act as well as evidence of payment of the applicable fee (see section 10 of the Regulations).

For Quebec economic applicants, who must obtain a Certificat de sélection du Québec(CSQ) from the province prior to being able to submit a permanent resident application to CIC, the age of any dependent person is locked in at the date Quebec receives the CSQ application.

Age lock-in determinations have an impact on applicants who must undertake a multi-step immigration process — such as the two-step application process for Quebec’s economic programs. Other immigration processes with two or more steps are processes for Quebec distressed cases and collective sponsorships, provincial nominees, live-in caregivers, resettled refugees from abroad, and in-Canada asylum claimants. These programs all involve two or more steps in the immigration process, and some can take two years or more before an individual is in a position to submit an application for permanent residence to CIC. For applicants in all of these programs, age lock-in determinations have a significant impact on whether their child will be found eligible for permanent residence as their dependent child.


The Government of Canada’s definition of a dependent child has evolved over the years. In 2002, with the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the eligibility age of a dependent child was raised from 19 to 22 years of age.

Under the IRPR, one’s child may be in a situation of dependency and therefore fall under the definition of “dependent child” if he or she is under 22 years of age and not a spouse or common law partner. A child who is 22 years of age or older may also be considered a dependent child if that person has depended on the financial support of the parent(s) and has attended school continuously as a full-time student since before the age of 22 (or, if married or in a common-law relationship before that age, since becoming a spouse or common-law partner). Finally, a child who is 22 years of age or older may be considered a dependent child if that person has depended on the financial support of his or her parent(s) since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

Over the past five years, Canada has weathered the global recession well. However, economic stability remains fragile. Accordingly, emphasis on the objectives of IRPA to maximize the economic benefits of immigration and support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy has become more central to the immigration agenda. Significant transformations to Canada’s immigration system are still needed to sustain economic growth, job creation and prosperity. A key element of these transformations is an efficient and effective immigration system focused on Canada’s economic and labour-force needs to attract immigrants who will contribute to the Canadian economy.

The above principles are reflected in the 2012 and 2013 economic action plans and the 2013 Speech from the Throne. The 2012 Economic Action Plan set the Government’s immigration priority goals to fuel economic prosperity, transition to a fast and flexible economic immigration system, and select immigrants that have the skills and experience required to meet Canada’s economic needs. In its economic action plans 2013 and 2014, the Government indicated its intention to further improve the immigration system to focus more on meeting Canada’s economic needs.


The primary objective of these regulatory amendments is to enhance economic integration of immigrant dependent children to increase Canada’s economic potential. This will be achieved by reducing the maximum age of dependent children to admit those children who are more likely to successfully integrate into the labour market and contribute to the Canadian economy. To further ensure admittance of younger children, the exception to the age limit of dependent children for full-time students will be removed.

A secondary objective of these amendments is to increase processing efficiencies and reduce the risk of fraud by removing the current exception to the age limit of dependent children for full-time students.

A third objective is to mitigate the impact of the new definition on economic and humanitarian programs involving a multi-step immigration process, and bring consistency across all programs by amending in the Regulations the determinations CIC uses to lock in the age of a dependent child for all immigration categories.

Transitional provisions will also mitigate the impact of the amendments on multi-step immigration programs, but only for those whose applications are already in process (see the Description section).


The amended Regulations will narrow the definition of dependent child by reducing the age limit to under 19 and remove the exception for full-time students.

The limitation in terms of civil status (i.e. that the child must not be a spouse or common-law partner) and the exception for older dependants unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition will be retained.

Consequential amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed definition will be made throughout the IRPR.

Lock-in determinations that officers must use to determine the age of a child for the purpose of assessing whether or not the child meets the definition of dependent child will be defined clearly in the Regulations for all categories. Specifically, the age of dependent children will be locked in at

Application processes with one step

  • The date CIC receives a complete permanent resident application, for applicants in the federal economic class (e.g. federal skilled workers, federal skilled trades, Canadian Experience Class, federal business).
  • The date CIC receives a complete permanent resident application, for applicants in the family class (including the Spouse and Common-Law Partners in Canada class).
  • The date CIC receives a complete permanent resident application, for applicants for humanitarian and compassionate consideration in Canada.
  • The date CIC receives a complete permanent resident application, together with a complete sponsorship undertaking, for privately sponsored refugees.

Application processes with two or more steps

  • The date Quebec receives a complete application for a Certificat de sélection du Québec, for applicants in Quebec economic categories (Quebec skilled workers and Quebec investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed), persons in distressful situations and persons sponsored under collective sponsorships destined to Quebec.
  • For provinces and territories other than Quebec, the date the province or territory receives a complete application for provincial nomination, for applicants in the Provincial Nominee program.
  • The date CIC receives an initial and complete work permit application from abroad from applicants in the Live-In Caregiver program.
  • The date CIC receives a referral from a referral organization, for refugees selected abroad who are referred by a referral organization.
  • The date CIC receives the permanent residence visa application for refugee protection as per paragraph 139(1)(b) of the Regulations for persons who do not accompany the applicant and apply for permanent residence within one year from the day on which the refugee protection was conferred to that applicant (referred to as one-year window).
  • The date a person’s claim was made to an officer as per subsection 99(3) of IRPA, for persons who made a claim for refugee protection in Canada and who subsequently acquired protected person status.

Given that age lock-in determinations are defined in the Regulations for all immigration streams and programs, the references to age lock-in under section 121 (Family class), section 128 (Spouse and Common-Law Partner class) and section 142 (Resettled refugees) of the Regulations have been removed. However, the portion of these sections dealing with the other elements of the definition of dependent child have been retained, i.e. that the child is not a spouse or a common-law partner and, where it applies, and that the child is financially dependent on his or her parents due to a physical or mental condition. These elements are not locked in at any point during the immigration process; they must be satisfied at the time of application and at the time at which the permanent residence status is granted. Furthermore, as no such provisions exist in the current Regulations for the economic and in-Canada humanitarian streams, sections were added for these streams.

Finally, amendments are introduced to the fees of overage dependent children who are financially dependent on their parents due to a physical or mental condition. Currently, these children are subject to the same $550 processing fees for accompanying a principal applicant as dependent children of 22 years of age or older, or less than 22 (but a spouse or common-law partner), who are financially dependent on their parents because they are full-time students. For younger accompanying dependants (under 22 years old and not a spouse or common-law partner), those processing fees are $150. Under the amended Regulations, the only overage dependent children (19 years of age or older) will be those who are financially dependent on their parents due to a physical or mental condition. The amendments will apply the same fee of $150 to all accompanying dependent children. The $550 fee will continue to apply to children of 22 years of age and older and to those less than 22 who are a spouse or common-law partner, who are included in applications covered by transitional provisions and who are financially dependent on their parents because they are full-time students (see Transitional provisions below).

Transitional provisions

Transitional provisions will apply to applications in multi-step permanent resident immigration programs, and in particular for applications which will already be in process at the time of coming into force, but for which the application for permanent residence has not been submitted to CIC. For these groups of applicants, there would have been an assumption that the same definition of dependent child would apply throughout the entire process, with the expectation that the applicants would be able to bring their dependants to Canada upon completion of the permanent residency process. The transitional provisions will allow these applicants to benefit from the pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Programs in this category are

  • (i) Applicants selected by a province or territory under the Provincial Nominee or Quebec economic programs
  • Provincial nominees and Quebec economic migrants must first apply to the province/territory for nomination or selection and, if approved, can apply to CIC for permanent residence. In certain provinces and territories, applicants under provincial nominee business streams are also required to first come to Canada on a temporary work permit for a period of up to two years before being nominated. Overall, it may take from a few months to years before applicants are able to submit an application for permanent residence to CIC.
  • (ii) Persons in distressful situations selected by Quebec
  • Persons in particularly distressful situations who are destined to Quebec must first obtain a Certificat de sélection from the province before they can submit an application for permanent residence.
  • (iii) Persons being sponsored under a collective sponsorship in Quebec
  • For persons being sponsored under a collective sponsorship, an undertaking application must first be made to Quebec; if approved, an application for permanent residence can be made to CIC.
  • (iv) Live-in caregivers
  • Live-in caregivers come to Canada first as temporary foreign workers, usually without their children. Most (98%) apply for permanent residence with the aim of reuniting with their children after having gained the required experience, years later.
  • (v) Some refugee claimants and some refugees applying for resettlement to Canada from abroad
  • Refugees abroad and refugee claimants have been forced to flee persecution and have little control on the destination and timing of their migration. It may take years before they are granted protected person status and can file an application for permanent residence.
  • (vi) Persons whose circumstances are being examined under public policy considerations issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pursuant to section 25.2 of IRPA
  • Persons coming to Canada under public policies pursuant to section 25.2 of IRPA often experience refugee-like situations and may also have to wait some time, once selected under these policies, before being able to submit their permanent resident applications.

Furthermore, in some programs, two applications must be submitted: a sponsorship application and a permanent resident application. In the past, applications in the parents and grandparents category and the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program could be submitted separately, i.e. the permanent resident application would follow a positive assessment of the sponsorship application. Although there is now a requirement to submit both applications together, there are still some applications that have not yet been processed for which the new rules do not apply. In order not to penalize applicants who at the time of coming into force of the Regulations would have submitted their sponsorship application under the old rules but not yet submitted their permanent resident application, the transitional provisions will also be applied. In both cases, the permanent resident application, which includes the application for the dependent child, will not have been submitted with the sponsorship application or will not have been received by CIC at the time of coming into force of the proposed new definition. Applicants in these programs are

  • (vii) Parents and grandparents for whom a sponsorship application alone was submitted before November 5, 2011, the date on which CIC put in place a temporary pause on the acceptance of new sponsorship applications in this category as part of its Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification.
  • (viii) Privately sponsored refugees for whom a sponsorship application was received before October 18, 2012.

Fee-related transitional provisions

The fees payable for processing applications referred to in sections 295, 301 and 307 of IRPR, as they read immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations, will continue to apply to dependent children whose applications are covered by transitional provisions described above, who are 22 years of age or older — or less than 22 and a spouse or common-law partner and who are financially dependent on their parents because they are full-time students, as described in subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of dependent child as it read immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to this proposal, as there is no change in administrative costs to business.

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to this proposal, as there are no costs to small business.


In spring 2012, as part of Canada’s Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration hosted a series of multi-city in-person meetings with stakeholders. An online consultation questionnaire was also available for public comment regarding Canada’s Parent and Grandparent Immigration Program.

Amongst differing questions, participants were asked if CIC should redefine the eligibility of family members who accompany parents and grandparents, including their dependent children. There was a general consensus that younger applicants would benefit Canada economically. Commentators felt that they would be better able to participate in the labour market and integrate into Canadian society and more likely to support their families.

Prepublication comments

CIC received comments from provincial and territorial governments, as well as 60 submissions of written comments in response to the prepublication of the proposal to change the definition of dependent child in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 18, 2013.

The 32 organizations that submitted comments represented, in the majority, immigrant and refugee serving organizations and advocacy groups, as well as a number of social service agencies and legal clinics. Respondents also included faith-based organizations, organizations representing the legal profession, and ethno-cultural organizations. Twenty-eight comments were received from individuals including lawyers and immigration consultants.

Among key domestic stakeholders were submissions from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes refugiées et immigrantes, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Canadian Refugee Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association, the Mennonite Central Committee and smaller regional and local organizations from many provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also submitted written comments that focused on the impact of the proposal on the refugee resettlement program.

Of the 60 submissions, most of the stakeholders who responded were opposed to lowering the upper age limit. A number of immigrant and refugee supporting organizations and individuals opposed the reduction in age on several grounds.

IRPA objectives

Many who were opposed to the proposal argued that it counters IRPA’s objective to see families reunited for all permanent residence programs (economic, family and refugee/humanitarian). For example, some stakeholders argued that 19 to 21 year old youth are still emotionally and financially dependent on their parents, particularly in some cultures.

Humanitarian and safety concerns

Several stakeholders expressed concerns with the impact of the proposal on refugees. They pointed out that it would be difficult for refugees to make arrangements for their young adult children to live safely with extended family in the country of origin and that there is a risk that some families may sacrifice the safety of young adult children, particularly women, for whom they can make no adequate arrangements.

The UNHCR stated the proposal would result in a misalignment between the UNHCR’s concept of a dependent child and Canada’s, and negatively impact its ability to refer some refugee families to Canada for resettlement. The organization requested a mitigating measure should the proposal be implemented, namely to set the age lock-in point as the date on which CIC receives a refugee referral from the UNHCR.

Economic impacts

Some stakeholders disagreed with the notion that younger immigrants experience better economic outcomes. Some suggested that the overall economic impact of the amendments should consider other factors, such as whether some of the economically beneficial immigrants Canada seeks to attract might decide not to come to Canada if they may not bring their older children.

Provincial Nominee program and Quebec economic program

Provinces and territories, immigration consultants and some other individuals raised concerns that transitional provisions had not been proposed for Provincial Nominee and Quebec economic programs. The absence of transitional provisions for these programs would mean that some prospective immigrants through these programs whose applications were awaiting decisions would see their older children become ineligible. Transitional provisions allowing these applicants to benefit from the pre-amendment definition would mitigate the impact of the change in the definition of dependent child on these applicants.

Following the prepublication consultation and further analysis, CIC determined that the proposed reduction in age limit and removal of the exception for students will be maintained. In addition to reuniting families, IRPA envisions the successful economic and social integration of permanent residents into Canada. Children over the age of 19 will not be prevented from immigrating to Canada; they will have to qualify on their own merits under one of Canada’s immigration programs or streams. Additionally, CIC decided to complement the original proposal with measures that would respond to several key concerns. These measures include

  • 1) providing transitional provisions for provincial and territorial nominee programs and Quebec economic programs, as well as Quebec special processes for persons in a particularly distressful situation selected by Quebec and persons sponsored under collective sponsorships destined to Quebec (see the Implementation, enforcement and service standards section);
  • 2) adding regulatory provisions regarding age lock-in procedures for all categories. Such lock-in procedures will mitigate the impact of the changes to the definition for certain of the economic immigration programs, address some of the humanitarian and safety concerns identified with regards to young adult refugees, and provide a consistent approach across all immigration programs.


Amendments to the definition of dependent child

Two factors explain the successful economic integration of younger dependants: (1) they receive a Canadian education and later obtain Canadian work experience, which is better recognized by Canadian employers; and (2) they display an increased ability to adjust to a new linguistic and cultural context. (see footnote 4)

The younger immigrants are when they are granted Canadian permanent residence, the better their long-term labour market outcomes relative to those who immigrate at a later age, and the more closely their experience resembles that of people born in Canada. (see footnote 5) The earlier in life immigrants arrive, the more their educational experience will resemble that of their Canadian-born counterparts and the easier it will be for them to learn an official language, assuming their first language is not English or French, and adapt to Canadian cultural traits and social norms. The younger an immigrant is when landing in Canada, the more time the immigrant has to gain human capital skills specific to the Canadian labour market.

Age at immigration frequently determines where a person receives his or her education. With evidence that the return on Canadian education in Canada is usually much higher than the return on foreign education, age at immigration becomes one of the most important factors in determining the economic outcomes of immigrants. (see footnote 6) Research further suggests that the children of immigrants who have schooling in Canada have economic outcomes which are on par with, and in some instances surpass, the average ones of Canadian-born children. (see footnote 7)

The amended definition of dependent child, based on the age of 19, is in line with most provincial, federal and international standards by which a child is considered to have reached the age of independence (i.e. age 18 or 19).

In Canada, each province and territory decides its respective age of majority. Anyone under a provincial age of majority is considered to be a “minor” or “child.” Across Canada, the age of majority is 18 or 19 years, varying from province to province. Currently, it is 18 years in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan, while it is 19 years in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Canada’s Criminal Code also treats those who are 18 years old and over as adults.

In most countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a person is eligible to vote at the age of 18.

The amendments to the definition of dependent child respond to Government priorities of having an immigration system focused on Canada’s economic and labour force needs. Reducing the age of dependants allows for flexibility to select immigrants based on their economic potential, their ability to integrate more rapidly into the labour market, and the duration of their contribution to the economy. Analysis reveals that, on average, skilled workers have the best economic outcomes. (see footnote 8) They are followed by dependent children under 19 years of age, who are successfully integrated into Canadian society by the time they enter the labour market.

The change to the definition of dependent child still meets the IRPA objective of family reunification as parents can still bring with them their children who are under the age of 19, an age where most children are just completing secondary school. Older children (aged 19 and over) will have to demonstrate their own integration merits through other Canadian immigration programs. In 2012, dependent children under the age of 19 constituted 90% (66 782) of all children for whom a permanent resident application was approved that year, while those aged 19 and older were 10% (7 832). (see footnote 9)

At current processing levels, approximately 7 000 individuals (see footnote 10) (ages 19 and above, from all immigration categories combined) will no longer be considered dependent children as a result of the amendment to the definition of dependent child. Most of these individuals will be children of applicants in the PGP (25%), Business (14%), and Provincial Nominee programs (19%) who apply after the coming into force of the new definition.

The impact on applicants of the amendment to the definition of dependent child will be mitigated on a temporary basis by transitional provisions that will allow applicants who have already initiated their immigration process at the time of coming into force of the new definition to complete this process under the same criteria, i.e. the pre-amendment definition of dependent child (see the Implementation, enforcement and service standards section).

Children aged 19 and above who will no longer be able to immigrate as dependants of their applicant parents may decide to come to Canada as international students. If such international students acquire Canadian work experience after graduation and meet other applicable requirements, they may apply for immigration under the Canadian Experience Class, which to date has yielded positive economic and labour market outcomes. Others may decide to apply to come to Canada on their own merit through various economic programs. This will help Canada attract and retain qualified immigrants who have the skills and experience required to contribute to Canada’s overall economic growth.

Amendments related to age lock-in

Given the amendment to the upper age limit from under 22 to under 19, parents with children in the 16 to 18 age range who are just beginning a multi-step immigration process will reasonably worry whether their children will still be eligible by the time they are able to submit their application for permanent residence to CIC. This may deter some of the economically beneficial immigrants that Canada is seeking to attract from choosing Canada.

Regulations defining lock-in determinations will mitigate this impact for certain immigration categories and provide a consistent approach across all permanent residence programs based on the principle of locking in the child’s age at the first formal stage of the immigration process.

These new lock-in provisions will provide a permanent and consistent approach to age lock-in based on the principle that the child’s age will be locked in at the first stage of a multi-step application process (i.e. Quebec economic programs, the Provincial Nominee program, the Live-in Caregiver program, refugee resettlement in which a referral organization makes a referral, and the In-Canada Asylum program). The earlier lock-in points will offset the deterrence effect of the narrower definition of dependent child for some of the immigrants Canada is seeking to attract — those with the skills Canada needs to strengthen the economy, who are seeking to immigrate via one of these multi-step immigration programs, and who have teenage children who might not be eligible to accompany them by the time their permanent resident application is assessed. They will also help offset the impact on Canada’s refugee protection programs, and help Canada continue to provide protection to families in need.

Based on the number of persons whose permanent resident applications were approved in 2012, new lock-in determinations will reduce the impact of the new definition by about 35%. In other words, the annual number of individuals who will not be eligible to immigrate as dependent children because of both changes (the change in definition of dependent child along with new lock-in regulations) is expected to be 35% lower than if only the definition of dependent child had been changed.

Overall impact of amendments

The overall costs of the new Regulations to the Government of Canada are expected to be very minimal. Communication and operational measures are expected to amount to a cost of approximately $62,000.

These regulatory amendments will increase Canada’s economic potential by enhancing the economic integration of immigrants overall. They will ensure that dependent children who come to Canada are those with better economic integration potential. They will also create more space in the levels plan for immigrants selected for their economic potential.

The new Regulations will also improve processing efficiencies in processing immigration applications, allowing visa offices more time to assess other immigration applications rather than assessing the full-time student status of older children (a process that is vulnerable to fraud).

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

These Regulations come into force on August 1, 2014.

New definition of dependent child

For all applicants who submitted a permanent resident application prior to the coming-into-force date, the existing definition of a dependent child will continue to apply.

For applicants who submit any sponsorship application and/or permanent resident application on or after this date, the new definition of a dependent child will apply, except those who benefit from the transitional provision (see the Description section).

Once all applicants covered by these transitional provisions have completed their immigration process (i.e. once their permanent resident application has been processed), these provisions will no longer apply.

Age lock-in provisions

The new lock-in provisions are ongoing. They will apply to all applications for permanent residence received by CIC on or after the coming into force of these amendments, except those applications for permanent residence which will benefit from any of the transitional provisions described below.


A communication strategy is being developed to inform the public, stakeholders and other key audiences of these changes. A news release and backgrounders are proposed and would be issued publicly and posted on CIC’s Web site. Web content, including a Web notice and notice boxes with links to new forms, kits and guides, will be created and a complementary social media campaign will be developed to maximize dissemination of this information.

If you have any individual questions or concerns, please contact our office for more customized consultation for your unique situation.  Please note that this posting is for general information only and is not to be considered binding or official legal counsel since situations will vary and can be complicated. The content in this post is current as of the day of entry. Due to the changing nature of Immigration law, the information in this entry may or may not still be applicable.


Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

JR Law - Google Reviews

Jennifer Roggemann Immigration Law
Based on 89 reviews
powered by Google
alex pellegrini
alex pellegrini
14:45 13 Apr 20
Worst experience of my life! Not only did she take an absurd amount of money for the consultation, me and my husband left in tears. Never felt so discouraged in my life and like this was about to be a huge mistake! She wanted around $8000-$10000 in fees was the estimate and my jaw hit the floor! We quickly called every other office around for a second opinion as I left her office in a panick attack. Spoke with people at W.W immigration and within minuets they eased my mind! This was the best decision of my life, they calmed me down and dealt with our immigration in no time. Now it’s been 10 months later my husband is working and there was no stress. Would never recommend walking into Mrs. Roggemanns office it was a traumatic experience for us.
Richard Cooke
Richard Cooke
15:15 14 Feb 20
Jennifer has helped us tremendously with my application for a spousal open work permit in Ontario. She also gave us some very useful advice and guidance towards our application for Permanent Residence, and suggested ways we can maximise our CRS points. Many thanks to Jennifer and her team, we'll be using them again in the future and would highly recommend their services to others that are in a similar situation to us.
Syed Jaffri
Syed Jaffri
15:48 05 Jan 20
Working with Jennifer Roggemann and her team was an absolute pleasure. They over delivered on what they promised. Immigration cycles can be quite strenuous as there are a lot of moving parts involved which have to be done in a timely yet professional manner. Jennifer and her team have been tremendously helpful and pushed us along even when we were not fully on the ball. Highly recommend using this firm as honesty and integrity is clearly practiced here. Thank you for everything you've done for us and look forward to working with you in the future. Special thanks to Erica who was working on our case!
oscar fabian gonzalez muñoz
oscar fabian gonzalez muñoz
03:52 12 Dec 19
We are very pleased, grateful and thankful for Jennifer and team! We had a very bad experience with our first lawyer and had to switch in last minute. Jennifer and team worked extra hours to fix our miserable situation. Thanks to the many years of experience and detailed work we got the visa! We can highly recommend her and if you are stuck don't hesitate to contact this office, they are fast, efficient and super helpful with all the questions you may have!
Richard Marchak
Richard Marchak
20:57 27 Nov 19
I asked Jennifer for information about a situation that was coming up very quickly for someone I knew. She answered with important information in a timely response that greatly helped with the decision that was needed quickly.
Lindsay Hayter
Lindsay Hayter
14:57 05 Nov 19
We have been submitting LMIA's for temporary foreign workers for 3 years now. In the past it has taken 2- 46 months to get a call from Service Canada to review my application. In 2019 I started working with Jennifer Roggemann's office and I received a call within 5 business days!! They are very detailed and ensure they really understand your business. I will continue to use them in the future and really recommend her and their team!!
Mohammadhassan Marvasti
Mohammadhassan Marvasti
23:13 28 Oct 19
Jennifer and her staff are extremely professional and have deep knowledge of their job. Jennifer reviewed our case with great detail and clearly communicated the path we needed to take through our immigration process. Jennifer was very responsive to every question or concern we had through the process and we were very impressed by how quick she responded to our emails (within minutes!!). We had a great experience working with Jennifer and will definitely recommend her office to whom requires immigration services.
Duong Tuan Kiet
Duong Tuan Kiet
17:35 28 Oct 19
Having been in Canada since 2008, there were many challenges along the way. However, some of the most intriguing and yet, complicated burden was the Immigration Process. Meetings after meetings with advisors and friends were fruitless, some gave me more headaches than necessary. However, with Jennifer, the process was clear. The goal was set and a timeline was created. Jennifer kept everything very streamlined. There were little to no confusions throughout our discussions, and each interactions helped build my confidence in trusting Jennifer's Immigration Law services. Simple, strategic & concise. An absolute pleasure to be your Firm's client.
Cory Thiessen
Cory Thiessen
19:12 24 Oct 19
We have had several complex immigration questions over the years and working with Jennifer and her team have not only helped our organization in securing the correct permissions for our team members in Canada, but also gave us confidence in our procedures. We could not have done what we have accomplished without their expertise and attention to detail.
Rose Janssen
Rose Janssen
21:32 23 Oct 19
Jennifer and her team have been wonderful to work with. They are very organized and have made the process quite easy. They have communicated throughout the entire process so we always know the status of our application and what is needed from us. Highly recommend!
Leni Marlina
Leni Marlina
20:51 08 Oct 19
Nice place and this is My Immigration lawyer office,who is helping me for my PR process and less than 6 months I got my PR.
Liz S
Liz S
14:19 24 Sep 19
Jennifer and her team have been truly wonderful to my family. They have made it so we can build a life here in Canada. We are VERY grateful to them and so glad to have them share in our happiness! If you need amazing people in your corner, these guys are your team! Thank you so much, Jennifer and team!
Moe Weso
Moe Weso
21:55 13 Sep 19
I’ve had a long road to get to where I am today. Fleeing from my home country as a teenager in the 1980’s, going through the refugee system in Canada where I was eventually successful in becoming a protected person. I filed for my PR on my own but it was refused in 2012. A few years later, I didn’t notice that my work permit had expired and I needed to restore my status. I spoke with Guelph Immigrant Services and they referred me to Jennifer’s office. I knew that I wasn’t getting anywhere on my own. I’d fill out the form and send it off and they’d send it back because something was missing. I’d fix that and then it would come back with something else. I realized that I needed help. I went for a consultation with Jennifer and decided to hire her, as I only had a short time to restore my status. I’m glad I hired them – even though it ended up being a lot of money over the years. I kept getting into trouble, but they were able to rescue me. Finally, I applied for PR again with their help; and today, I became a permanent resident. Now I have security that I’m not going to have to leave my spouse of 20 years and my Canadian children. I no longer have to fear being deported to a nation that I haven’t seen since I was a teen. I would recommend Jennifer and her team to anyone who needs help. They’re efficient, competent and helpful professionals. They get the job done. I appreciated the way I felt in their office. They don’t talk down to their clients and I never felt like I was being interrogated. It was a lot of money and sometimes I needed some time to pay them. I’m grateful that they were helpful and came up with a payment plan that worked for both of us. When I heard today that I can stay here in Canada for the rest of my life completely legally; that meant the world to me. What relief and freedom I feel as that weight is lifted off my shoulders. I know I’m going to be back as soon as possible for Jennifer and her team to help me finally become a Canadian citizen in this country where I’ve lived for 30 years. Thank you Moe
Dhairya Vora
Dhairya Vora
17:12 29 Jul 19
DO NOT GO HERE ! Jennifer was unprepared and she has literally no idea about Post Graduate Work Permit. I studied for a 2 years course but still ended up with a 1 year work permit. When I approached her for the help, she disappointed and discouraged me. She was slamming my forms and transcript on my face (literally) and told me that you can never get 3 years work permit. She also charged me with 340$ for 1 hour consultancy (most places offer this for free) and yet she did not give any guidance on how to reapply and get the work permit. Later, I applied from a different immigration consultancy and they give a 100% gaurantee right from the time I reapplied, and guess what? I got my 3 years work permit. I did read a mix review about this lady but still ended up going there. DO NOT make the mistake which I made. PS: Learn to be more professional, you are a lawyer and not a vulture. Stop exploiting people.
Ryan Hutcheson
Ryan Hutcheson
00:24 08 Jul 19
I love the process design.
Parth M. Patel
Parth M. Patel
20:27 16 Jun 19
Very helpful and kind staff. They are master of their field.
Maria Rodrigez
Maria Rodrigez
23:28 30 Apr 19
She will take you for all you're worth! I made the decision to have this law office help me submit a permanent residency application for my new husband. She wasted many hours over the period of 6 months gathering information for this application. She charged me $10,000 for this! The things she was asking for were ridiculous... like 50 photos of us with friends names written on the back of each... receipts from groceries and restaurants... on and on. I finally looked up the application on the government website and GOT IT DONE IN A FEW HOURS. She made it seem so much more difficult so she could charge her time. I fought her tooth and nail and she agreed to give me $2,000 back. $8,000 and 6 months later I was no closer to having the application filed and that is time and money that I can not get back. I wish her nothing but the worst for the hardships she has caused my family. She took advantage of us in the worst way.
Mike Lumsdale
Mike Lumsdale
02:55 23 Jan 19
Jennifer's Law Office was fantastic. From the beginning of the process when I was still in England and having the ability to Skype them and email them with any questions we had was fantastic. Also having them be so open and professional when the time came to start the process for PR after I had arrived in Canada was amazing also. It definitely put both mine and my wife's mind at ease as we knew that everything was being handled. I couldn't recommend Jennifer's team highly enough. Excellent from start to finish.
Ashly K
Ashly K
18:35 05 Dec 18
I'm so happy with my experience at Jennifer Roggemann Immigration Law. I feel like I came in as a disheveled person who was so lost on what to do. Jennifer and her law office helped me navigate everything I needed, and everything was explained wonderfully. We had everything completed and we were so confident in all the work that they did. We left feeling so secure and like we had a family at the office. We were so pleased with how the process worked, of course we were approve! Now we can continue to live life as a family here in Canada
James Montgomery
James Montgomery
03:07 08 Sep 18
Used these guys recently and received my permanent residency. If you're main concern is price then this is not the place for you, you can definitely do it cheaper. But what I got from here is highly knowledgeable people, very friendly and courteous staff. From day one my application went incredibly smoothly and happened exactly as they told me it would. If your case could be complex, you need to see these guys as they know what they are talking about. Hassle free, stress free, and fit what I wanted. Cant say better than that!
Benjamin Pull
Benjamin Pull
01:59 02 Sep 18
We had such a good experience with Jennifer Roggemann's office. All of the staff there are welcoming and helpful, but most importantly patient. We were undertaking a permanent residency which, let me tell you, is daunting.In these matters it's important to realize that a misfiled document or a form filled out incorrectly could delay things immeasurably or indeed, be cause for denial. That being said you should definitely consider seeking professional help. Jennifer Roggemann and her team have the knowledge and the patience to take you from start to finish. You have to put effort into the process. But that is to say that their assistance will make it seem less like a chore. I am sitting here writing this review having recently been awarded permanent residency. There are no guarantees, but I feel that this is largely the case because of Jennifer Roggemann and her team of professionals. We will be forever grateful for their help. Their expertise are invaluable.
Rasim Batmaz
Rasim Batmaz
02:51 29 Aug 18
To figure out how to go through the immigration process, we googled ‘best immigration lawyer in KW’ and Jennifer came up. We read the reviews, as it was important to see what others had said. We decided to give her a call and we’re glad we did. Jennifer and her team are very knowledgeable and cared about us as people. Yes, we’re a customer but we feel we’re also friends. Whenever we called or emailed, we received a direct reply. When we didn’t understand something, they never gave up finding the right explanation so that I could understand. We felt very much part of the team and involved in finding solutions. When I had financial problems, they even came up with a payment plan to help us manage our finances which was amazing. We’ve already referred people to go to see Jennifer. We tell them that they care about their clients and they look after them as people. She’s so straightforward and honest. She does what she says. Thanks to Jennifer and her team.
Ana Ritchie
Ana Ritchie
01:36 17 Aug 18
I came here from Portugal to go to school; then, I was working after graduation. After I met, and fell in love with my Canadian husband, we were looking for ways that I could stay. I had an idea that we would do this process ourselves but I got overwhelmed with trying to figure it out. I googled ‘best immigration lawyer in KW’ and Jennifer’s name popped up. I read the reviews and decided that we should go for a consultation; maybe that would give us enough information to sort out what we’d read online. My husband and I went to meet with Jennifer and she went over all the options that we had. Both Craig and I looked at each other and thought this is too much work and too confusing to do by ourselves. I had made it to Canada by myself, but now I needed help to stay. Our experiences with the office were great. They were very clear in how they answered any questions I had and they didn’t lie to me. The peace of mind of knowing that we’ve covered all the bases let us be confident that this was going to work and I could stay here. They keep up with all the changes in the law and get things done correctly – that’s what I tell people when they ask me why we chose Jennifer. Now I’m a permanent resident here and I have the peace of knowing that I can stay. It may seem like a little thing, but we’re planning a vacation this fall and when we come home, I’ll be able to stand in the same line as my husband at the airport. Thanks Jennifer and team you’re all amazing. Ana
Ted Yoon
Ted Yoon
01:13 02 Aug 18
I came to Canada from Korea for college and ended up staying and working in my field. When I was eligible to apply for Permanent residency through the Canadian Experience Class, I was looking for some help. I was introduced to Jennifer through the Korean community and I went for a consultation. She sounded confident and that she could solve the problems that I had with my situation. I’m glad that I decided to hire Jennifer. She knows much more than some consultants that I talked to in Toronto. She and her office are confident and knowledgeable about what they do. They are expensive, but I always received a response quickly whenever I had a question or had provided them with documents. The fact that Jennifer could communicate with my family in Korean was very helpful. She also has an understanding of the cultural concerns that are common to South Korean men my age regarding military service in our home country. I liked that, because I lived out of town, I was able to have skype meetings with the office rather than having to drive to Kitchener to meet. Now I’m a permanent resident and I’m able to move on with my life. I’m looking forward to being able to apply for Canadian citizenship as soon as possible and I know I’ll be back for another consultation with Jennifer. Ted
Cheyenne Cartwright
Cheyenne Cartwright
21:38 01 Aug 18
We found this law office in one of the most challenging periods of our lives. Newly married, my wife Canadian and myself American, we had drastically misunderstood the processes necessary to ensure I would be able to build a life with her in Ontario, and I was only a couple of weeks away from a potential notice of deportation. Based on the mistakes I made, I did not think I even deserved a chance to make it right and managed the (short, but painful) wait for an appointment with plans to move back to the US and restart the process. Already partially reassured by the incredibly fast and professional response of the office's staff, I went into the meeting cautiously optimistic, and to make a long story short, we immediately agreed to enter a process that just in the past couple of months culminated in securing my permanent residency. Along the way, I received expedited permissions to pursue a job in Ontario, mentoring throughout the process of acquiring required documents and testimonials, anything we could have wanted, especially and all importantly the peace of mind mentioned in other reviews here already. And I never had to be separated from my wife at any point. While expensive, the costs were well explained, and we were coached in how to keep the costs as low as possible by doing as much on our end as we could. This resulted in a sizable refund of our retainer, given to us immediately along with my notice of permanent residency. I have nothing but praise for their office and staff, and anticipate continuing to exchange Christmas greetings/gifts over many happy years here in the province.
Franky Tacia
Franky Tacia
23:45 28 Jul 18
Completely unprofessional reception and an absolute scam as far as “initial consultation” that was her scribbling and circling on a bunch of random questions that lasted 15 minutes for $1000.00. Learned absolutely nothing new other then she wanted another $9,000.00 to help. Stay away!!!
Hannah Schell
Hannah Schell
16:01 24 Jul 18
A Canadian-American couple, we have been married for a long time and had been living in the United States. We are both college professors, and have struggled for years with balancing our two careers. When Martin got a job offer “back home” in Canada, we decided it was time to start a new chapter and made arrangements to begin immigrating. We had previously gone through the long, messy process of immigration to the U.S. for Martin’s green card and ended up having to hire a lawyer after trying to do it on our own. This time we wanted things done smoothly and so we started looking online for help. We googled immigration lawyers in the area and saw that Jennifer’s office was all women. Intrigued, we read everything on her website and made arrangements for a consultation when we were visiting. The date of that first consultation actually coincided with our 20th wedding anniversary - what’s more romantic than a visit to a lawyer’s office! The price tag was sobering but since we wanted this done right, we decided to go ahead. We sensed they knew what they were doing, were organized and efficient, and we liked that they didn’t talk down to us. Jennifer talks fast (!) and processes information quickly, and we appreciated that she was very thorough and open and gave us all the information we needed to make an informed decision. We decided to hire Jennifer and her team and we have never regretted that decision. Every interaction with the office (whether in person, phone or email) was professional and friendly. They were continually helpful and although we were sharing a lot of personal information, we trusted them. The most valuable thing they gave us was peace of mind. They are very efficient and we didn’t have to worry about the details. They had told us how long they expected the process to take, which helped give me a timeline of when I would be able to look for new job opportunities here in Canada, and we are thrilled that it turned out to be even faster than what they had told us. They were able to offer helpful suggestions for how to get all the needed materials along the way, including the medical exam, finger-printing, background checks, etc. We recommend that you at least go and have a consultation with Jennifer to find out all your options. They are friendly, fast, smart and helpful. Now I’m a permanent resident here and Martin and I are enjoying settling into our new community. Thank you Jennifer and team for helping us start this new chapter in our lives! Hannah & Martin
Alison Moffatt
Alison Moffatt
20:42 04 Jul 18
We're so thankful we found Jennifer & her law office! As a small company, we were able to navigate the immigration system with their help and guidance - and got the outcome we wanted! Thank you so so much for everything, we have really appreciated working with your team.
L. Spalla
L. Spalla
17:13 25 Feb 18
They charged 300 just for one hour and a half consultation, so I asked roughly how much it would be to apply for sponsorship, they couldn’t tell me I was only calling them because I’m actually from Toronto and my fiancé wants to get a lawyer close to kw Long story short, her secretary were pushing me for a consultation without trying at least understand my situation and get me a price Basically what I’ve seen is, u go for consultation, spend 300$ they charge u whatever after, if u r not ok with the price, they still made 300$ on you
Arielle N
Arielle N
03:25 20 Dec 17
We went to Jennifer with just under two months before my work permit expired and I wanted to apply for PR. Long story short, Jennifer and her staff were incredible, thorough, well experienced and fast! We all worked very hard to get my application in and today I'm already a permanent resident of this great country. Pricey though but what lawyer isn't..she does pre-warn about that but honestly with how fast they worked and their knowledge around the entire process, it was all worth it. Thank you Jennifer Roggemann and your wonderful staff. I truly believe they are the best in town.
21:46 22 Nov 17
Very honest, straightforward person. She gave me all of the information I needed in order to make an informed decision.
Louise Cowden
Louise Cowden
13:55 05 Jun 17
In August 2015 we walked into Jennifer's office looking for advice on how to get John PR status, and walked out after our appointment wishing we had come to see them sooner. Jennifer gave us all of the options available and set some realistic expectations. It's been nearly 2 years since we walked into her office, and just last week John became a permanent resident. We couldn't have done it without everyone in the office, they made things so much easier. The value, to us, of having Jennifer and her team is that we were not worried about our application. We knew that we were in great hands, and we would get the outcome that we were hoping for. Especially thankful for Heather and Erica, you both played a huge part in making sure that I kept calm; the professional and knowledgeable manner that you both have kept my mind at ease throughout the last year and a half. Without them, we wouldn't be able to move on with our lives in Canada. We can't thank you enough for everything that you have done for us. Louise and John
See All Reviews

Facebook Stream

JR Immigration Law - Facebook Reviews

Jennifer Roggemann Law Office
Based on 11 reviews
powered by Facebook
Lindsay Jayne Hayter
Lindsay Jayne Hayter
Jennifer and her team have been great to work with! We received LMIA approvals in a matter of weeks when other... applications took 6+ months. They respond to my inquiries urgently and professionally. It has been a great partnership for the last more
Oluwole Olusegun Awaye
Oluwole Olusegun Awaye
I have trust in her office
Robin Grossi
Robin Grossi
Very thorough and clear direction presented in a user-friendly way.
Kiet Tuan Duong
Kiet Tuan Duong
Michelle Serrano
Michelle Serrano
Very good Lawyer.... I had a very complicated issue in Immigration she made it fast and easy.. highly recommend.Thanks... Jennifer and to your team. Good job!!!!!read more
Anthony Lauron
Anthony Lauron
Libby Avalos
Libby Avalos
I would definitely recommend JR Law to anyone seeking immigration assistance. We first met Jennifer in November 2011,... and she and her team proceeded over the last 2 years to help my husband achieve permanent residency status thru in-land spousal sponsorship. I know that many people attempt to do this process on their own, but after being thru it, I would never recommend that. Laws are always changing, and it was such piece of mind to know that we were getting the most current information, and that everything was being done correctly. We definitely hit some bumps in the road... immigration lost part of our file, which needed to be redone, and then they were on strike, slowing everything down. JR Law supported us during the entire extra, unexpected time. Again, these things happen and we were happy to have legal support throughout. The team at JR law was always friendly, organized, supportive, and very fair and honest. We will definitely be seeing them again moving forward with any immigration issues in the future!read more
Claudio Leanza
Claudio Leanza
Waste of money!!!!lot of money!!
Thomas Williams
Thomas Williams
Tim Underwood
Tim Underwood
Gordie Hanna
Gordie Hanna

Please follow & like us on social media.