Destination Weddings to Canada and the Law

joeblack2022 wrote in post #16860301
I think what Doc is alluding to that once you clear customs and immigration (on false pretenses let's say) the likelihood of being caught in the act is probably very low.

That's true BUT if you do get caught you're in quite a bit of trouble (it's infinitely preferable to get turned around at the border as opposed to being caught later!) and in addition in either event you run the risk of being black-balled for future entry into the country -- and that can be permanent.

You are probably right. Personally I only know of one person who was caught after passing immigration and was then deported for visa violation so I guess it is rare. Of course the likelihood of someone tripping over your kit and hurting themselves is rare too, so should we also start advising businesses not to have adequate insurance? Building a business (or part of your business) based on breaking the law simply isn't good business advise.

Immigration officials are renowned, the world over, for being tough unyielding and humourless. But the one time a wedding tog gets caught they better beg the immigration officials to send them to prison, rather than deporting them, because that is most certainly going to be preferable to what will happen when the Bride gets home from the destination wedding she has been planning for month with no wedding photos, because the photographer decided to gamble on not getting caught breaking the law.

tickerguy wrote in post #16860501
That's true BUT if you do get caught you're in quite a bit of trouble (it's infinitely preferable to get turned around at the border as opposed to being caught later!) and in addition in either event you run the risk of being black-balled for future entry into the country -- and that can be permanent.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16860548
You are probably right. Personally I only know of one person who was caught after passing immigration and was then deported for visa violation so I guess it is rare. Of course the likelihood of someone tripping over your kit and hurting themselves is rare too, so should we also start advising businesses not to have adequate insurance? Building a business (or part of your business) based on breaking the law simply isn't good business advise.

Immigration officials are renowned, the world over, for being tough unyielding and humourless. But the one time a wedding tog gets caught they better beg the immigration officials to send them to prison, rather than deporting them, because that is most certainly going to be preferable to what will happen when the Bride gets home from the destination wedding she has been planning for month with no wedding photos, because the photographer decided to gamble on not getting caught breaking the law.

Yep the consequences are serious alright, so why take the risk?

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16860289
When the immigration dept decide you aren't coming in what exactly do you think happens?

For the purpose of the thread, you get DENIED ENTRY at worst.

You don't get arrested.
You don't get banned from coming in.
You don't get "deined entry for life".

You might not care to differentiate between denied entry and being arrested, but since you're giving advice in a thread some people might point out a difference.


You get arrested if you're muling drugs. If someone has a hunch that your camera gear might be used professionally, making an arrest is ridiculous.

Why not make up a scenario where the tog fights with the customs, holds up a hostage and makes a dash for the plane after being denied entry? They most certainly will.

I'm all for obeying the law. But legal reasons aside, I think morally a country has no reason to deny a professional photographer. The BG are already shelling out for the venue, catering, and flying guests in which is a huge influx of money. Insisting on a local photog is just being petty.

It's like wearing a bike helmet. There's no right answer and two scools of thought.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16861999
For the purpose of the thread, you get DENIED ENTRY at worst.

You don't get arrested.
You don't get banned from coming in.
You don't get "deined entry for life".

Just as a point of clarification. You can get banned from coming in for a period of 1 year, but usually you are allowed to revoke your request for entry and just leave.

But you are correct you will not be arrested nor will you be banned for life.

You can end up in gitmo if you say the right things. But this has nothing to do with crossing a border with a camera.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16861999
I'm all for obeying the law. But legal reasons aside, I think morally a country has no reason to deny a professional photographer. The BG are already shelling out for the venue, catering, and flying guests in which is a huge influx of money. Insisting on a local photog is just being petty.

It's like wearing a bike helmet. There's no right answer and two scools of thought.

Legal reasons are REALLY important in this discussion. If Canada thinks you need a work VISA, then it would be illegal for you to go without one. If they have no reason to deny you entry, then they also have no reason to deny you a visa and getting one shouldn't be a problem. I don't think anyone has claimed that they think you would definitely be denied a visa, but many in this discussion do think you need one.

Exactly.

At the end of the day this is about nothing more or less than lying to a government official. I have never crossed a national border into another nation during my years where I was not asked the purpose of my visit.

I think many posts are off base and potentially misguided. I even think that if you ask the average Canadian government representative, they may answer this question incorrectly as far as what the law IS and what the law INTENDED to do. If companies are based in other countries and conduct business there, they need official documentation. Things such as business meetings where no money is exchanged during that meeting, typically do not. So I could go to a meeting in Canada and take pictures at that meeting as an attendee and not have to file papers to show I was going to take pictures at that meeting. When crossing the border, though, I would have to declare I was going to a business meeting. They would ask LOTS of questions, but unlikely make me turn around. They are concerned about losing work to foreigners. The destination wedding is not something that is taking away jobs from a Canadian, but still may be looked on by some at the border that way… incorrectly. Best to have legal guidance and something in writing. The average border control agent, if he did not have specifics in writing, would probably not let you cross.

Darvon wrote in post #17037203
I think many posts are off base and potentially misguided. I even think that if you ask the average Canadian government representative, they may answer this question incorrectly as far as what the law IS and what the law INTENDED to do. If companies are based in other countries and conduct business there, they need official documentation. Things such as business meetings where no money is exchanged during that meeting, typically do not. So I could go to a meeting in Canada and take pictures at that meeting as an attendee and not have to file papers to show I was going to take pictures at that meeting. When crossing the border, though, I would have to declare I was going to a business meeting. They would ask LOTS of questions, but unlikely make me turn around. They are concerned about losing work to foreigners. The destination wedding is not something that is taking away jobs from a Canadian, but still may be looked on by some at the border that way… incorrectly. Best to have legal guidance and something in writing. The average border control agent, if he did not have specifics in writing, would probably not let you cross.

Aren't you a little late to this argument?

Darvon wrote in post #17037203
I think many posts are off base and potentially misguided. I even think that if you ask the average Canadian government representative, they may answer this question incorrectly as far as what the law IS and what the law INTENDED to do. If companies are based in other countries and conduct business there, they need official documentation. Things such as business meetings where no money is exchanged during that meeting, typically do not. So I could go to a meeting in Canada and take pictures at that meeting as an attendee and not have to file papers to show I was going to take pictures at that meeting. When crossing the border, though, I would have to declare I was going to a business meeting. They would ask LOTS of questions, but unlikely make me turn around. They are concerned about losing work to foreigners. The destination wedding is not something that is taking away jobs from a Canadian, but still may be looked on by some at the border that way… incorrectly. Best to have legal guidance and something in writing. The average border control agent, if he did not have specifics in writing, would probably not let you cross.

....and a little wrong. Clearly if a photographer travels from another country to take the photos it will mean that a local wont be doing the job; which is exactly what the law is set up to prevent.

That sounds right to me, Darvon. The point is that it doesn't take business away from Canadians and that the business exchange (hire/pay) is not in Canada.

YankeeMom wrote in post #17038179
That sounds right to me, Darvon. The point is that it doesn't take business away from Canadians and that the business exchange (hire/pay) is not in Canada.

I don't see how it doesn't take business from local Canadians.

Is the wedding party also getting the catering done in the US and taking all the food to Canada with them? What about the hire cars? are they coming from the US? Flowers?

I would imagine that they are getting local caterers, local car hire, local florist and so on. If they can book all these other services locally, then they could book a Canadian photographer as well, so bringing one in from outside the country IS taking business from a Canadian photographer.

Canadian photographers are hired by Canadians. I would agree with you if Canadians were bringing American photographers up for their weddings. That would hurt Canadian photographers. This is about an American business arrangement that has nothing to do with Canada, except as a location. I would never have a destination wedding hoping I could just find a photographer I like. I would want to bring my own (due to the artistic nature of the field.) There is quite a bit on this argument throughout the thread (comparing working in other states, for example.)

YankeeMom wrote in post #17039823
Canadian photographers are hired by Canadians. I would agree with you if Canadians were bringing American photographers up for their weddings. That would hurt Canadian photographers. This is about an American business arrangement that has nothing to do with Canada, except as a location. I would never have a destination wedding hoping I could just find a photographer I like. I would want to bring my own (due to the artistic nature of the field.) There is quite a bit on this argument throughout the thread (comparing working in other states, for example.)

And unfortunately place of performance is a critical part of any contracted work. The work is taking place in Canada, where, I assume, there are wedding photographers. The laws don't care about your comfort level with the local talent.

Everything else is a bill-to/ship-to question and not part of the scenario.