We made a mistake on the dates of statutory declaration of common law

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

That's a great point. Deadline is today. I would submit something basic on my own today which includes the corrected statutory declaration and a short LOE.

The deadline is today but they have responded that they have made a decision today.

Ok but I am confused with the dates field for the statutory declaration of common-law specifically the FROM date.

"It says I solemnly declare that we have cohabited in a conjugal relationship for _____ of years(s) FROM _____ to _____"

Should I be putting the date the moment he moved in (February 2020) or the date we became common law (February 2021)?

Thank you

 

[armoured]

The deadline is today but they have responded that they have made a decision today.

Ok but I am confused with the dates field for the statutory declaration of common-law specifically the FROM date.

"It says I solemnly declare that we have cohabited in a conjugal relationship for _____ of years(s) FROM _____ to _____"

Should I be putting the date the moment he moved in (February 2020) or the date we became common law (February 2021)?

Thank you

Please ask your lawyer!

But if you want an opinion, I would put dates of ACTUAL cohabitation. Seems obvious to me.

But then I generally recommend NEVER answering the question 'when you became common law', because even IRCC seems to screw up when asked to use that date.

 

[armoured]

The deadline is today but they have responded that they have made a decision today.

So this is maximally clear: you MUST still respond today.

You were given a deadline, if you meet it, they MUST take into account information provided in that response. If they do not, including substantively, you have excellent grounds for an appeal (which may look more favourably or differently upon the case than the officer).

Editadd later: note, I'm not saying an appeal will turn out better, or that it will be successful. But having solid grounds for reconsideration is better than not having them.

Also note: even with a denial where they haven't taken this into account, I do not know whether appeal will be 'better' route compared to applying anew. It is my assumption though that with a new app, the officer will consider and look at the original refusal - and if they see that the only issue (again assuming) was the common law period and the error in the app, a new 'clean' app that corrects the above would hopefully fare better.

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

So this is maximally clear: you MUST still respond today.

You were given a deadline, if you meet it, they MUST take into account information provided in that response. If they do not, including substantively, you have excellent grounds for an appeal (which may look more favourably or differently upon the case than the officer).

Editadd later: note, I'm not saying an appeal will turn out better, or that it will be successful. But having solid grounds for reconsideration is better than not having them.

Also note: even with a denial where they haven't taken this into account, I do not know whether appeal will be 'better' route compared to applying anew. It is my assumption though that with a new app, the officer will consider and look at the original refusal - and if they see that the only issue (again assuming) was the common law period and the error in the app, a new 'clean' app that corrects the above would hopefully fare better.

Working with our lawyer now. I submitted our love story time line and some factors to consider. This is what I sent to our lawyer. They're drafting a concise LOE and attaching the statutory declaration of common-law with and they're sending it today.

This is my email to our lawyer. Hope they're done drafting the letter soon so we can send it this afternoon.

Letter of explanation and factors to consider:

I honestly have overlooked the dates on the statutory declaration of common law because during the time we processed the application, I also was helping out my sister submit her student visa application. It could've been avoided but we weren't extra diligent with checking it unfortunately with work schedules and life responsibilities in general, it was a lot that time.

We have provided all the other dates on the forms as it occurred on the timeline below. We submitted Andre's ETA copy alongside his passport with a stamp dated his point of entry. We even wrote a timeline with dates summarizing our love story and the important dates. These documents prove that we are honest on the dates the events occured and that one of the documents has been overlooked. We didn't omit anything and have provided all the documents IRCC asked such as photos with me and my family, conversations, proof of cohabitation through signed sublet lease, shared expenses through e-transfers, insurance coverage.

As mentioned on our call, officer Vijesh's tone when I got his call already kinda implied in my own judgement that he doesn't want to approve the application. When I told him the dates were wrong he accused us of lying right away and threatened to issue a ban. That being said, I kinda anticipated that he would not grant the extension but if I would have submitted a new common-law declaration and written an LOE on my own, I think he would still have issued a refusal thus we thought it would have been better to seek professional help.

This breaks my heart and how they would just so easily tear us apart. We don't know what to do Please help us out.

Timeline:

Jan 2019 - Johan arrived in Canada as PR
Sep 2019 - Andre arrived in Canada on ETA (to visit his cousin and a short vacation)
Dec 2019 - Around end of december, we met on a dating app – started chatting
Jan 1, 2020 - We met in person, went for a date in a coffee shop and continued chatting daily since then
Jan 5, 2020 - We went to lakeshore and CN Tower and this was the day we became official
Feb 2, 2020 - Andre moved to my place to live with my family in [our old address]
Feb 2, 2021 - Marked 1 year of our cohabitation – I submitted a common-law declaration and got it notarized
Mar 2021 - We submitted our common-law sponsorship application by mail
Oct 2021 until present - Our family moved to [our current address]

Some of our photos:
: <

 

[armoured]

Working with our lawyer now. I submitted our love story time line and some factors to consider. This is what I sent to our lawyer. They're drafting a concise LOE and attaching the statutory declaration of common-law with and they're sending it today.

Looking at the timeline: I would say unless your evidence of living together was very strong at the time you applied (which it probably was not if you moved in with 'your family' which I presume means parents - and when I say was not it would be more credible if you had a joint lease on a property you moved in to together, and not eg a note from parents) - then the officer will be able to refuse your application on that basis. (You were closer to just meeting 12 months when you applied, so any weakness in evidence of cohabitation direclty undermines your case). Still living with family doesn't help your case (IMO although could be wrong).

The remaining question is misrepresentation ban or not. This is what you and the lawyer are working on - giving clear evidence to disprove that (or at least dissuade them from writing it up as misrepresentation). I think you have a decent case for that. We shall see.

[My guess is that if decision has actually already been made, it does not include misrepresentation. For the simple reason that they would actually have to read your response in full to bother. Declining on basis you did not meet the common law statutory - that does not really require that, because they know the answer (i.e. 'it was a mistake') and evidence they have already. It's an easy technical refusal in most respects. But again, a guess.]

If so, and we should wait and see, I'd honestly suggest: if there's no ban, get married and apply as married - circumvent that issue.

But still: reply today as your lawyer counsels.

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

Looking at the timeline: I would say unless your evidence of living together was very strong at the time you applied (which it probably was not if you moved in with 'your family' which I presume means parents - and when I say was not it would be more credible if you had a joint lease on a property you moved in to together, and not eg a note from parents) - then the officer will be able to refuse your application on that basis. (You were closer to just meeting 12 months when you applied, so any weakness in evidence of cohabitation direclty undermines your case). Still living with family doesn't help your case (IMO although could be wrong).

The remaining question is misrepresentation ban or not. This is what you and the lawyer are working on - giving clear evidence to disprove that (or at least dissuade them from writing it up as misrepresentation). I think you have a decent case for that. We shall see.

[My guess is that if decision has actually already been made, it does not include misrepresentation. For the simple reason that they would actually have to read your response in full to bother. Declining on basis you did not meet the common law statutory - that does not really require that, because they know the answer (i.e. 'it was a mistake') and evidence they have already. It's an easy technical refusal in most respects. But again, a guess.]

If so, and we should wait and see, I'd honestly suggest: if there's no ban, get married and apply as married - circumvent that issue.

But still: reply today as your lawyer counsels.

I am hoping this new statutory declaration of common-law plus the LOE written would have them reconsider their decision. Our documentation is pretty strong, signed lease even though it is sublet (rent is high in toronto and I am the only one working for both of us since he cannot work), he's my insurance beneficiary, he's my common-law on all documents, taxes, work stuff, personal stuff and even signed attestation letters all notarized from friends and family. We also sent plenty of pictures and conversations from messenger and imessage.

Thank you for all your insights. I will report back as asap for an update.

 

[armoured]

I am hoping this new statutory declaration of common-law plus the LOE written would have them reconsider their decision. Our documentation is pretty strong, signed lease even though it is sublet (rent is high in toronto and I am the only one working for both of us since he cannot work), he's my insurance beneficiary, he's my common-law on all documents, taxes, work stuff, personal stuff and even signed attestation letters all notarized from friends and family. We also sent plenty of pictures and conversations from messenger and imessage.

Hey, I hope I'm wrong too. Main thing though is still: avoid the misrepresentation thing at all costs.

Good luck.

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

A decision will be made based on the information on your file. Kindly note that the submission was due
on 2023/06/22.

Btw I am so confused with this language. It says was due on 6/22/2022. Does that mean that it's already due?
Sorry english is my second language.

 

[ERCAN]

Btw I am so confused with this language. It says was due on 6/22/2022. Does that mean that it's already due?
Sorry english is my second language.

It's today. By the end of this day. Otherwise it would be "before"

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

Hey, I hope I'm wrong too. Main thing though is still: avoid the misrepresentation thing at all costs.

Good luck.

Thank you

It's today. By the end of this day. Otherwise it would be "before"

Thank you for clarification <3

 

[Ponga]

Looking at the timeline: I would say unless your evidence of living together was very strong at the time you applied (which it probably was not if you moved in with 'your family' which I presume means parents - and when I say was not it would be more credible if you had a joint lease on a property you moved in to together, and not eg a note from parents) - then the officer will be able to refuse your application on that basis. (You were closer to just meeting 12 months when you applied, so any weakness in evidence of cohabitation direclty undermines your case). Still living with family doesn't help your case (IMO although could be wrong).

The remaining question is misrepresentation ban or not. This is what you and the lawyer are working on - giving clear evidence to disprove that (or at least dissuade them from writing it up as misrepresentation). I think you have a decent case for that. We shall see.

[My guess is that if decision has actually already been made, it does not include misrepresentation. For the simple reason that they would actually have to read your response in full to bother. Declining on basis you did not meet the common law statutory - that does not really require that, because they know the answer (i.e. 'it was a mistake') and evidence they have already. It's an easy technical refusal in most respects. But again, a guess.]

If so, and we should wait and see, I'd honestly suggest: if there's no ban, get married and apply as married - circumvent that issue.

But still: reply today as your lawyer counsels.

Typically, IRCC has asked for additional evidence if what was provided with the application is not sufficient. There have been many here that have reported being asked to provide additional info/detail by a certain date. I don't know that applications were denied without asking for more proof for cohabiting with their sponsor in the class, even if they were living with family.

Regarding the misrepresentation part that you mention, I would tend to disagree, since the letter that the OP received starts out with:

Misrepresentation

40(1)...

But as we all know, nothing surprises us!

And getting married to circumvent the issue is moot, IMHO; there can be little doubt that if the two are still cohabiting under the same roof (even if still living with family) they are more than qualified to apply again as common-law partners. Marriage certainly is a valid option if they are ready for that step.

Obviously hoping that my entire post is moot and that the appeal is successful!

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

Typically, IRCC has asked for additional evidence if what was provided with the application is not sufficient. There have been many here that have reported being asked to provide additional info/detail by a certain date. I don't know that applications were denied without asking for more proof for cohabiting with their sponsor in the class, even if they were living with family.

Regarding the misrepresentation part that you mention, I would tend to disagree, since the letter that the OP received starts out with:

Misrepresentation

40(1)...

But as we all know, nothing surprises us!

And getting married to circumvent the issue is moot, IMHO; there can be little doubt that if the two are still cohabiting under the same roof (even if still living with family) they are more than qualified to apply again as common-law partners. Marriage certainly is a valid option if they are ready for that step.

Obviously hoping that my entire post is moot and that the appeal is successful!

I would marry my partner I don't find any issues in that. I would talk to my lawyer if that helps at this stage. We are basically married without the ceremony. If not for that common-law document error that was missed. I refer to my partner as my spouse and everyone knows that we are living marriage like. All my relatives know and attest on the relationship and I don't mind giving them more documentation.

What I just do not understand is why it seems like IRCC and the officer seems to be so against us. The moment he called me two weeks ago he sounded nice at the beginning and asked me if we started cohabiting February 2019 - and he was probably expecting a yes as an answer so he can refuse our application right away. The thing is I answered truthfully and he started threatening to issue a ban. Seems very unfair. From the very beginning of that call he sounded like he's closed ears to whatever we say as a reason.

 

[scylla]

I would marry my partner I don't find any issues in that. I would talk to my lawyer if that helps at this stage. We are basically married without the ceremony. If not for that common-law document error that was missed. I refer to my partner as my spouse and everyone knows that we are living marriage like. All my relatives know and attest on the relationship and I don't mind giving them more documentation.

What I just do not understand is why it seems like IRCC and the officer seems to be so against us. The moment he called me two weeks ago he sounded nice at the beginning and asked me if we started cohabiting February 2019 - and he was probably expecting a yes as an answer so he can refuse our application right away. The thing is I answered truthfully and he started threatening to issue a ban. Seems very unfair. From the very beginning of that call he sounded like he's closed ears to whatever we say as a reason.

The issue is that the error you made is a very material misrepresentation. That's what it comes down to. It was a very big mistake to make.

Good luck and I hope you hear a positive outcome.

 

[juhanjuhanjuhan]

Our lawyer just submitted our response. It was pretty robust 8 pages document to back things up. I am crossing my fingers we get a positive outcome and overturn whatever the officer's decision.

One of the senior lawyer mentioned that our case seems to be very strong given the fact that the rest of the document indicates the correct date and only the common-law document is not. And they find it outrageous because they have encountered much more difficult cases where the visa officer is much more considerate. : <

 

[ERCAN]

Our lawyer just submitted our response. It was pretty robust 8 pages document to back things up. I am crossing my fingers we get a positive outcome and overturn whatever the officer's decision.

One of the senior lawyer mentioned that our case seems to be very strong given the fact that the rest of the document indicates the correct date and only the common-law document is not. And they find it outrageous because they have encountered much more difficult cases where the visa officer is much more considerate. : <

Good luck