...
IRCC has it on the form, actually. That may be inadvisable - as basically irrelevant under (current) Canadian law (so why does IRCC offer it as an option? Probably historical) - but it is a normal question for applicants/sponsors to ask here on the forum, whether they should put that or - wait - do I need to be legally separated?.
...
But overall I mostly agree with your point, there's not really such a thing in Canada (to my layman's knowledge). Some want to spend money on an affidavit, which is usually nothing more than a letter saying "we are separated" with a lawyer or notary's stamp affixed saying "this guy said this! really!."
And overall I agree with you. I seem to recall it is on the IRCC form, as you say, but I also recall, regardless of the nature of one's separation so to speak, if married, the form pretty much requires you to check "legally separated" since, in the case of most who are separated, there's no other reasonable choice. For example, being separated in any manner does not allow one who is married to answer "single".
In the case of
@Potter Harry, having never been married, I would answer the question as "single", even though the two were apparently together for long enough to be seen as common law in the eyes of the IRCC. In that regard, the IRCC has adopted its own notion of what constitutes "common law". Here in BC, that term has fallen somewhat into disuse in the courts and replaced with the more awkward "marriage-like relationship" and, under the BC Family Law Act, must subsist for more than 2 years to be recognized, instead of the 1-year period deemed sufficient by the IRCC.
I'd also note that it's entirely possible that other jurisdictions/countries DO have or had some legal procedure to denote some kind of recognition of separation as distinct from divorce (which is after all outlawed in some countries).
That could be possible, but I doubt the form contemplates much beyond such things as "single", "married" (legally) "separated", "divorced" or "widowed" and, perhaps, "annulled". But that might be incorrect. Maybe there's a choice of "other". But my guess is that one must select from the limited list presented - a list the IRCC considers adequate. Other countries might well have a range of recognitions, but the form will require one to pick from the IRCC terms. I would not expect any country to have some form of recognition of "common law separation". I know of quite a few people in Canada and elsewhere who have had a string of relationships, each lasting a year, but not much more. They might have to answer "separated x 8" or something like that. And some of them have also been married and divorced along the way, so they would have to answer "divorced and separated x 8".
It's been a fun, a quasi-legal and quasi-linguistic
dust-up disagreement over a bit of a trifling point, in which I sought simply to point out that "legally separated" is no different from "separated" in Canadian law. I hope not too distracting for the OP.
