they gave him benefits based on “the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada”
Yes, because
Brown said those definitions show the applicant reasonably fell outside the meaning of both tourist and visitor, “given the sheer length of time and the roots the appellant had established while in Canada.”
No evidence was presented at the tribunal that he had been ordered out of Canada by federal immigration authorities.
Therefore, he did not fit into the three categories that are excluded from eligibility with respect to immigration status and he was eligible.
I remember when Harris brought in this legislation. What an incredible self own lol.
I think you’ll survive giving him $350 a month for 6 months.
Removed by mod
I disagree and so does this court.
Removed by mod
Yes, because
Therefore, he did not fit into the three categories that are excluded from eligibility with respect to immigration status and he was eligible.
I remember when Harris brought in this legislation. What an incredible self own lol.
Removed by mod
Lobster bucket mentality strikes again.