Canadian Government Launches World's First Start-Up Visa

Posted by Andrew Carricato on April 02, 2013

On April 1, 2013 the Government of Canada officially launched the world’s first Start-Up Visa Program aimed at recruiting innovative immigrant entrepreneurs.  Announced on January 24, 2013, Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (« CIC ») new Start-Up Visa Program will link immigrant entrepreneurs with private sector organizations in Canada that have experience working with start-ups and who can provide essential resources.

What it is?

The new visa is a bold new approach to attracting the world’s best and brightest start-up entrepreneurs to make Canada their destination of choice. The Program is unique because it will provide foreign entrepreneurs valuable assistance in navigating the Canadian business environment. For example, it will provide highly sought after entrepreneurs permanent residency and immediate access to Canadian business partners. This is expected to provide Canadian private sector organizations a powerful new tool which will allow them to attract global entrepreneurs who, it is hoped, will result in significant job creation.

How it works?

In order for an immigrant entrepreneur to qualify for the new Start-Up Visa Program, they will need to secure a minimum investment of $75,000 from a Canadian angel investor group or $200,000 from a Canadian venture capital fund. In addition to certain other program requirements, they will also have to possess certain educational qualifications and meet language proficiency standards.

At the outset, CIC will collaborate with Canada’s Venture Capital & Private Equity Association (CVCA) and the National Angel Capital Organization (NACO).  These groups will identify which members of their associations will be eligible to participate in the Program. CIC is also finalizing details of cooperation with the Canadian Association of Business Incubation (CABI) to include business incubators in the list of eligible organizations. A full list of designated venture capital funds and angel investor groups is now available on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website.

The pilot program will run for five (5) years. Initially, the emphasis will be on the quality of the applicants and on achieving successful outcomes. The number of applicants accepted will therefore initially be highly limited. Assuming the Program is successful, CIC hopes to expand it to formally introduce a new economic class in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The Start-Up Visa Program represents CIC’s latest effort at meeting the new and evolving needs of the Canadian economy by building a faster and more flexible economic immigration system.

If you would like to know more about this new Program or are interested in other employment related immigration matters, please contact us.

 

For more information see:

News Release — Historic New Immigration Program to Attract Job Creators to Canada

Backgrounder — The new Start-Up Visa Program: An Innovative Approach to Economic Immigration

Injured while Having an Affair: Workers' Compensation Benefits Allowed by the Federal Court of Australia

Posted by Daniel Mayer on January 08, 2013

A recent decision from the Federal Court of Australia, Comcare v PVYW, upheld a decision from a judge granting benefits to a worker who was injured while having an affair during a business trip. The worker was sent out of town to observe the budgeting process of a local agency and was staying in a motel room reserved by her employer. She met a friend one evening and they both returned to her motel room. While they were engaging in sexual intercourse, a light fixture fell on the worker. She sustained injuries to her nose and mouth.

Benefits were originally denied because Comcare (Australia’s equivalent to the WSIB) did not believe that the injury had occurred “in the course of employment.” On appeal, the Federal Court of Australia disagreed, holding that injuries occurring during the intervals between the worker’s actual work duties were in the course of employment. After all, the worker was where her employer had directed her to be.

There was no need for the worker to also show that the activity was expressly or implicitly induced or encouraged by the employer. As the activity was not misconduct and the injury was not self-inflicted, the course of employment was not ruptured. The injuries were covered because the worker was required to be away from the office and particularly to stay at the motel in question.

Continue Reading

Employers to Become Equal Partners in Immigration as Quiet Revolution Continues

Posted by Sharaf Sultan on March 05, 2012

The Federal Government late last week signalled in no uncertain terms its determination to forge ahead with fundamental reforms to the immigration system.

The government has over the last few years been on something of a mission to reform a system that has traditionally focused primarily on permanent residency, including the “family class”, into one increasingly designed to facilitate the entry of workers to meet specific labour market shortages.  The changes have been aimed at addressing what both statistics and employers have been saying for some time: Canada is not producing enough skilled workers to service rapidly expanding industries, such as the oil and gas sectors.

As I have discussed in previous postings, last April fundamental changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (the “TFWP”) came into effect.  These changes spelled out strict rules for employers to ensure their compliance with immigration rules.  Employers that stray from the rules through, for example, not adhering to pre-approved wages or working conditions, can find themselves subject to various sanctions, such as heavy fines or, worse, a ban against hiring foreign workers. 

The resulting modifications to immigration laws, such as these most recent changes to the TFWP, seem to be having their intended effect as the number of temporary foreign workers has in recent years climbed to the point where they now exceed the number of permanent residents accepted each year.

With great power comes great responsibility

The Federal Government’s announcement of last week appears to signal a continuing determination that employers will play an increasingly central role in deciding who can immigrate to Canada. 

The changes are nothing less than revolutionary.  All indications are that at least some of the notoriously creaky wheels of the immigration process will be deliberately lubricated to facilitate an expedited entry of workers to satisfy employer needs for skilled workers.  Specifically, the government will ensure that employers get their choice of workers quicker, a kind of “just in time” system designed to speed up the entry of workers to support commercial operations. 

Assuming the proposed changes come to fruition, it is clear that, while employers will play a greater role in the immigration system to secure desired employees, employers will have equally enhanced responsibilities to adhere to the increasingly complex regulatory environment surrounding immigration.  This means that employers would be wise to increasingly integrate immigration into overall Human Resources decision making, policy design, as well as overall execution.  Immigration will eventually cease to be a “one-off” issue but rather be part of comprehensive operational planning and ongoing compliance.  Revolutionary? Perhaps not, but a significant change nonetheless.

Attacking Client Confidentiality: Proposed U.S. Regs May Require Disclosure of Lawyers Used by Employers in Union Drives

Posted by Tim Lawson on October 25, 2011

In the United States, the Labour-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) requires employers and labour relations consultants to report the details of “persuader activities” to the U.S. Department of Labour (DOL).  A consultant engages in “persuader activities” if it is contracted to counter a union organizing drive or collective bargaining effort.  The reporting requirements are intended to bring transparency to the activities of those U.S. consultants who discourage employee organizing drives and engage in so-called “union-busting” activities.

The Current Reporting Requirements and the Exemption for Legal Advice

Currently, U.S. attorneys have very limited reporting requirements under the LMRDA because it contains a broad exemption for legal advice. 

Attorneys are only required to report “persuader activities” if they have direct contact with employees.  For example, attorneys who prepare and actually deliver persuasive material to employees have reporting requirements under the LMRDA.

Continue Reading

Airline's Retirement Policy Grounded by European Court Ruling

Posted by Brian Burkett on September 20, 2011

Richard Lister of Lewis Silkin LLP (the UK member of Ius Laboris of which Heenan Blaikie is the Canadian member firm) has posted this article at Global Employment Law:

How old should airline pilots be before they're made to retire? That was the central question in a case brought by German pilots against the airline Lufthansa which has just been considered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

A collective agreement to which Lufthansa had signed up included a blanket prohibition on pilots working after they had reached the age of 60. Three pilots, whose employment contracts automatically terminated on their 60th birthday, didn't feel ready to hang up their captain's hats. They claimed the rule amounted to unlawful age discrimination.

The German court decided to ask the ECJ what it thought. A key point was that both German and international law allows pilots aged between 60 and 65 to carry on working, so long as the other members of the air crew are younger than 60.

In light of that, the ECJ concluded that a complete ban on pilots working beyond the age of 60 was a disproportionate requirement. It went beyond what was really needed to ensure air traffic safety and protect public health and security.

The ECJ did accept that possessing particular physical capabilities is a genuine requirement for acting as a pilot and such capabilities diminish with age. But the judgment makes clear that any difference in treatment on grounds of age must be justified as being necessary and proportionate.

Flying Lessons

This case has obvious implications for the aviation sector. But more generally, it highlights the developing obligation under age discrimination laws for organisations to justify compulsory retirement ages. They need be in a position to provide cogent, objective reasons for adopting particular ages for particular jobs. Conducting a comprehensive audit of retirement policies and procedures is strongly advisable.

Employers who try to wing it could be heading for a crash landing... in court

Ius Laboris is a global alliance of over 40 leading management labour and employment law firms, of which Heenan Blaikie is the Canadian member.