2/27/2018
Topic:
Re-Activate My Social Insurance Number (SIN)-How?
snowman
|
Hi, thanks for sharing the information
I myself has had my SIN number Dormant. I don't agree with this process and like to appeal or put out a law suit. Do I have any recourse to their decision to dormant my SIN number. Are they not violating Constitutional laws/Common Laws/Charter of Rights?
Thank you |
2/16/2019
Topic:
Re-Activate My Social Insurance Number (SIN)-How?
snowman
|
Barron wrote:
Snowman, I haven't been able to find any instances of anyone trying to put out a lawsuit for this. That doesn't mean you theoretically couldn't, but I'm not sure if the grounds would exist. You can get it reactivated though! If that's not enough, I obviously can't give you any kind of legal advice but you could always try to approach a lawyer and see what you can do about it.
Thanks, I can't believe I am not alone, it is amazing how many people's accounts are dormant!
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200702_06_e_17472.html
The important sections for you are: 6.60, 6.61, 6.62
6.60 The Department also marks SINs with extended inactivity as dormant. A SIN may be inactive for a variety of reasons including emigration, an unrecorded death, an unused multiple SIN, or a fictitious identity not in use. The dormant flag identifies the SIN as being at higher risk of fraud if it is subsequently used to access benefits.
6.61 Of the 2.9 million excess usable SINs in June 2006, 2.1 million were flagged as dormant. The Department excludes dormant SINs from the total number of usable SINs when reporting on the excess. Accordingly, as of June 2006, its estimate of the excess usable SINs is around 800,000. As we observed in our audit work and as the Department's own studies have noted, the dormant flag does not automatically render a SIN unusable; rather, it is an indication of risk associated with inactivity.
6.62 An excess in the number of usable SINs in the Register indicates a risk to data quality. Continued analysis and monitoring of the number of usable SINs in the Register compared to Canadian population estimates is therefore necessary. The Department has not adequately assessed the risks posed by the excess number of usable SINs, including those marked dormant and those that are not, since 2004.
I wonder how they define, "2.9 Million excess usable SINs"?
I wonder how they define, "excess usable SINs is around 800,000"?
Do they really have a good excuse "risk associated with inactivity"?
Are they just keeping people from benefits?
Are these people actually undormanting their SINs?
I decided to open this group on facebook anyone is welcome to join: |