Examples
Below are Federal Court of Canada cases demonstrating the strict nature of the rules.
Kone v. Canada
Mr. Kone was a student at the University of Ottawa. His father died in May 2016 and had to return home for his funeral. In September 2016, he returned to Montreal, Canada to resume his studies after the semester started. He registered for the winter 2017 program at the Teccart Institute and returned to Ottawa in 2017 to continue studies at the University of Ottawa. The immigration officials determined that he did not actively work towards the completion of his studies. The Federal Court ruled that there was no reason why he could not have returned to Canada to resume his studies prior to the start of the fall semester.
Gursimran v. Canada
Gursimran, a student at Simon Fraser University, performed dismally in a number of courses. She then went to Kwantlen Polytechnic University, where again, her performance was dismal. She finally enrolled at Canadian College, where she passed 10 out of her 13 courses. She was involved in a car accident and withdrew from the semester. She was stopped at the border by the Canadian Border Services Agency when returning form a one-day trip from the US. The agency decided that she was not active in pursuance of her studies. The Federal Court ruled that she had failed to comply with the law since she had changed schools and programs. She had moved from business programs into a general arts and science program despite her permit specifying that she is to study business or commerce. Further, she studied for two semesters in three years and failed more courses compared to those she had passed.
Don’t be a fool, stay in school
The law has become increasingly strict in its interpretation of study permit compliance. International students need to prioritize on completing their studies by being serious while at school. There are severe consequences of failing to study actively. “Don’t be a fool (and get deported), stay in school,” Van Wilder.
