Image via WikipediaManitoba experienced its highest inflow of international immigrants in nearly 40 years this spring, but the province’s immigration minister said a new cap imposed by the federal government could prevent that number from growing too much higher in the future.
New population figures released by Statistics Canada Wednesday show Manitoba had a net international migration of nearly 4,400 people between April 1 and July 1.
That’s the highest quarterly number since 1971 for the stat, which measures the difference between international migrants arriving in Manitoba and Manitobans leaving for other countries.
Immigration Minister Jennifer Howard said Ottawa recently imposed a cap of 5,000 spaces for Manitoba’s nominee program for 2010 and 5,000 more in 2011, in order to balance the influx of economic immigrants with other streams like refugees and family reunifications.
“If we’re not allowed to grow beyond that, we will see a stalling of the program,” Howard said. “We could nominate 5,600 this year.”
Howard said the province estimates 2.5 people will come to Manitoba with each one of those spots, as each space represents an immigrant and his or her immediate family.
Howard said the top source country by far for immigrants to Manitoba is the Philippines, followed by Germany, China and India.
“Most newcomers say that it’s so friendly here, that we welcome newcomers. This is also the best place to raise a family,” said Rod Cantiveros, president of the Philippine-Canadian Centre of Manitoba, which offers a settlement program for new immigrants to help them with things like employment and education resources.
Cantiveros said Manitoba is well-known in the Philippines as a place with a vibrant Filipino community and making it an immigration destination.
Inkster MLA Kevin Lamoureux, whose office helps process about 300 Filipino immigration cases per month, said he’s recently seen an influx of cases of people getting rejected because the government is now demanding potential immigrants have at least $8,000 cash in their own names instead of in a trust account set up by a relative.
“It’s a very hot issue in the Filipino community,” he said.
Howard said there has been no such policy change. She acknowledged the federal government has become “more and more explicit that people need to have control over their own money” and there’s been a gradual tightening of existing rules, but said Manitoba has not changed its financial criteria for nominating potential immigrants.
paul.turenne@sunmedia.ca
Source: Sun Media
Canada seeks British immigrants
Image via Wikipedia
Northwestern Ontario, one of Canada’s largest but least populated regions, has launched an initiative to recruit British immigrants.
The 32 states which comprise the area, only one of which has a population of more than 10,000 people, have joined together to attract graduates and skilled workers.
A website which gives advice about living and working in the region has been set up, and a marketing campaign is planned to run across major cities in Britain over the next few months.
The region, which is located to the north of Lake Superior, has an urgent need for professionals, particularly in the health care, science and technology sectors, as well as graduates and entrepreneurs.
Rebecca Johnson, vice-president of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce and a councillor for the region's most populous city, Thunder Bay, said: “Though Northwestern Ontario once had a large migrant population, most British people who move to Canada now go to the more populated centres like Toronto and Quebec. Our population is ageing, and there are many businesses in the area which need new owners.”
Stephanie Ash, a British expatriate who is on the initiative’s organising committee, added: “What we hope we can offer to British immigrants is a combination of good work opportunities combined with good quality of life. And in return, we hope they’ll help us renew our region.”
The initiative has been funded by the Ontario and federal governments.
Rebecca Johnson, vice-president of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce and a councillor for the region's most populous city, Thunder Bay, said: “Though Northwestern Ontario once had a large migrant population, most British people who move to Canada now go to the more populated centres like Toronto and Quebec. Our population is ageing, and there are many businesses in the area which need new owners.”
Stephanie Ash, a British expatriate who is on the initiative’s organising committee, added: “What we hope we can offer to British immigrants is a combination of good work opportunities combined with good quality of life. And in return, we hope they’ll help us renew our region.”
The initiative has been funded by the Ontario and federal governments.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Newcomers find managing finances in Canada more difficult than expected: RBC poll (newswire.ca)
- Legal challenge to immigration cap (independent.co.uk)
Foreign employee working at canadian affiliate entitled to large severance
By Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP The transfer of employees from foreign-based companies to Canadian-based affiliates is an increasingly common feature of the Canadian labour market. Many employers are familiar with the often complicated process of obtaining the necessary work permits for such employees at the beginning of the transfer. However, ending the relationship between the transferred employee and the Canadian-based employer can present its own challenges. Some of these challenges are illustrated by the British Columbia Supreme Court's recent decision in Nishina v. Azuma Foods (Canada) Co., Ltd.
Foreign Employee Fired
Ms. Nishina was a 43-year old Japanese citizen who began employment with Azuma Foods International in California in June 2001. In August 2005, she was transferred to the B.C.-based affiliate.
The original work permit prepared by the employer was extended, and was to expire in August 2008. In September 2007, the employer offered to assist Ms. Nishina with an application for a permanent resident card so that she could continue working beyond August 2008.
One month later, in October 2007, the employer terminated Ms. Nishina's employment, alleging cause. Ms. Nishina sued for wrongful dismissal. The court determined that the employer's allegations of cause for termination were unfounded, and turned to the issue of damages.
Immigration Status Supporting Lengthy Notice Period
Despite her short six years of service, only two of which were in Canada, the court awarded Ms. Nishina 12 months pay in lieu of notice. The fact that Ms. Nishina had a work permit which allowed her to work in Canada, but only for Azuma, justified this lengthy notice period, in the court's view.
The court equated Ms. Nishina's situation to that where an employee is dismissed in a "one employer town": "Though qualified and experienced, [the employee] faces a dearth of alternate employment prospects".
The fact that the work permit was not due to expire until August 2008, and that the employer had offered to assist Ms. Nishina with applying for a permanent resident card one month prior to the her termination, may also have impacted the length of the notice period.
Employer Acted in Bad Faith, But No Provable Damages for Mental Distress
Ms. Nishina also claimed bad faith/mental distress damages. The court concluded that the employer breached its obligation to act in good faith in the manner of dismissal: it ought to have known that the manner of dismissal was not only unduly insensitive, but also that Ms. Nishina's lack of immigration status would cause her great difficulties.
While this finding could support a claim for damages for mental distress, Ms. Nishina failed to prove that she had suffered quantifiable mental distress, or that it was caused by the manner of dismissal rather than the dismissal itself. As a result, this part of her claim was denied.
$20,000 in Punitive Damages Awarded
After finding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to damages for mental distress, the court went on add a further $20,000 in punitive damages on the basis that the employer had breached the "implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal."
The punitive damage award bears a striking resemblance to the old practice of awarding a "notice extension" for bad faith conduct, an approach that the Supreme Court of Canada expressly abolished in 2008. It remains to be seen whether this approach to awarding punitive damages will be followed in the future.
Take Home Message for Employers Employing Foreign Workers
Although a B.C. decision, this case could be followed across the rest of the country. If so, employees who are in Canada on employer-sponsored work permits may be seen as particularly vulnerable in the eyes of a Canadian court. If the employee only has clearance to work in Canada based upon the position with the employer, a court may extend the common law notice period.
Employers seeking to employ foreign workers or transfer existing employees to Canadian affiliates may wish to takes steps to ensure that termination issues are addressed in writing prior to employment or the transfer.
Souce: Lexology
Ms. Nishina was a 43-year old Japanese citizen who began employment with Azuma Foods International in California in June 2001. In August 2005, she was transferred to the B.C.-based affiliate.
The original work permit prepared by the employer was extended, and was to expire in August 2008. In September 2007, the employer offered to assist Ms. Nishina with an application for a permanent resident card so that she could continue working beyond August 2008.
One month later, in October 2007, the employer terminated Ms. Nishina's employment, alleging cause. Ms. Nishina sued for wrongful dismissal. The court determined that the employer's allegations of cause for termination were unfounded, and turned to the issue of damages.
Immigration Status Supporting Lengthy Notice Period
Despite her short six years of service, only two of which were in Canada, the court awarded Ms. Nishina 12 months pay in lieu of notice. The fact that Ms. Nishina had a work permit which allowed her to work in Canada, but only for Azuma, justified this lengthy notice period, in the court's view.
The court equated Ms. Nishina's situation to that where an employee is dismissed in a "one employer town": "Though qualified and experienced, [the employee] faces a dearth of alternate employment prospects".
The fact that the work permit was not due to expire until August 2008, and that the employer had offered to assist Ms. Nishina with applying for a permanent resident card one month prior to the her termination, may also have impacted the length of the notice period.
Employer Acted in Bad Faith, But No Provable Damages for Mental Distress
Ms. Nishina also claimed bad faith/mental distress damages. The court concluded that the employer breached its obligation to act in good faith in the manner of dismissal: it ought to have known that the manner of dismissal was not only unduly insensitive, but also that Ms. Nishina's lack of immigration status would cause her great difficulties.
While this finding could support a claim for damages for mental distress, Ms. Nishina failed to prove that she had suffered quantifiable mental distress, or that it was caused by the manner of dismissal rather than the dismissal itself. As a result, this part of her claim was denied.
$20,000 in Punitive Damages Awarded
After finding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to damages for mental distress, the court went on add a further $20,000 in punitive damages on the basis that the employer had breached the "implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal."
The punitive damage award bears a striking resemblance to the old practice of awarding a "notice extension" for bad faith conduct, an approach that the Supreme Court of Canada expressly abolished in 2008. It remains to be seen whether this approach to awarding punitive damages will be followed in the future.
Take Home Message for Employers Employing Foreign Workers
Although a B.C. decision, this case could be followed across the rest of the country. If so, employees who are in Canada on employer-sponsored work permits may be seen as particularly vulnerable in the eyes of a Canadian court. If the employee only has clearance to work in Canada based upon the position with the employer, a court may extend the common law notice period.
Employers seeking to employ foreign workers or transfer existing employees to Canadian affiliates may wish to takes steps to ensure that termination issues are addressed in writing prior to employment or the transfer.
Souce: Lexology
Related articles by Zemanta
- The case of the $2.2-million severance (theglobeandmail.com)
- Famous Cases of Wrongful Termination (brighthub.com)
- Tighter controls placed on employers of temporary foreign workers in Canada (newswire.ca)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)