For the OP: it appears that this subject has been addressed as comprehensively as this forum can. Odds are probably good you are NOT facing a serious problem, but that is based on what really is only a superficial understanding of what could be relevant facts and circumstances.
The rest of this post is peripherally about such situations generally, addressing some tangents which warrant further attention, and
NOT a commentary on yours as such.
My understanding this is not illegal. What you have done is even recommended by IRCC and i quote:
"For PR Cards issued to new immigrants upon entry to Canada (Phase I cards), it may be appropriate for clients to provide the address of a third party (friend, relative, service provider or a paid representative) in Canada in order to facilitate processing and issuance of the card following their arrival in Canada, as new immigrants may not have a permanent address."
@dpenabill, i'm now concerned. I did the same thing with one my friend's friends. He came through Federal Skill worker program and not provincial nomination and he's studying currently in BC. My citizenship application is still in the initial phases. What do you recommend I shall do to avoid this hassle and ensure no misrepresentation is done?
The subject has been covered as well as it can be in a forum like this. Probably no reason to blink, no cause to worry.
But as the OP's situation illustrates, it may depend.
The OP's main exposure is mostly rooted in the particular circumstances, the possible appearance of facilitating a fraud on the system and a provincial nominee program in particular. Even for the OP this may be of very little import, but we do not really know what the extent of exposure is and a forum like this is NOT a suitable venue for getting into sufficient details for us to know, not even if someone here has significant expertise in such matters (I certainly do not).
As others have noted, the use of a friend's or family member's address when landing is very common and there has been no hint that CBSA or IRCC has had concerns about this. Caution: That does not necessarily make it OK. And the fact that it has been frequently recommended in forums like this means very little (unfortunately this forum is rife with recommendations based on what someone can easily get away with rather than what the rules are, and more than a few recommendations which are outright erroneous . . . for years, prospective citizenship applicants who came to Canada as a refugee were advised in this and other forums to obtain a passport before applying for citizenship, even though doing so raised the presumption of reavailment and thus grounds for cessation of their status; sure, most giving that advice were not aware the prospective applicant was a refugee, and the prospective applicant was unaware having refugee status made a difference when applying for citizenship, but that only illustrates how easily and often an important factor is not addressed in the query or the response, all too often leading to bad advice). BUT it does mean it would be rather unusual for there to be a problem merely because a friend or family member has used your address, and it would only be a problem in an unusual circumstance.
A general observation about using other people's address or letting others use one's address:
This is indeed extremely common, in many contexts, for many purposes. And in most contexts, for many purposes, there is either nothing at all wrong with this or it is otherwise allowed. But in some contexts, for some purposes, it can be a misrepresentation or even an outright fraud.
There is a tendency to not distinguish between what is allowed by rule and what is allowed in practice. The difference, however, is important. If something is NOT allowed by rule BUT in general is allowed in practice, there is a risk it will not be allowed in particular instances. Think driving 20k over the limit on the 401. I've done that with impunity, never ticketed. But I recognize the risk. And as often as I have done this, without a problem, it would be grossly imprudent to advise someone that it is OK to drive even 15k let alone 20k over the limit. "
Easy to get away with driving 15k over on the 401," that is probably fair advice. But it is nonetheless speeding, nonetheless a violation of law.
Obviously, not all rules or laws are created equal. The seriousness with which rules may be enforced varies greatly. The potential consequences vary greatly.
And there can be great variability for precisely the same act. Again, a highway speed limit example: 20k over on the 401 in light traffic, between Waterloo and London say, is one thing; 20k over in a school zone on a busy Hamilton street when children are just getting out of school, that is quite another.
Here is the rub:
The use of a phony address, that is declaring a residential address which is NOT where the individual actually lives, has been at the core of scores and scores of not just individual cases of fraud, but fraudulent schemes facilitated by unauthorized (as in crooked) consultants. So of course the validity of the address used in applications and communications with IRCC is a key factor, something which IRCC might focus on with some attention, and sometimes a lot of attention.
My sense is that CBSA (who usually does the landing interview) and IRCC are well acquainted and OK with the fact that new immigrants will give a temporary address in the process of landing, which is the address of a friend or family member. This in itself should be NO problem. But of course that "should be no problem" does not come
carte blanche; if, for example, there are multiple new immigrants using the address, that could be perceived to indicate that address is being used as part of a scheme to abuse or defraud the system. Where things go from there, well, that depends . . . could be not so bad, or it could be bad.
On the other hand, scores of PRs applying for a new PR card, or for citizenship, have given the address of a friend or family member even though that is not the address where they actually "live." That is outright misrepresentation. And often treated as such by IRCC. Again, the severity of doing this can vary considerably, depending on the particular circumstances. But doing this alone can be grounds for denying a citizenship application resulting in a five year prohibition, and make no mistake, this has happened to some.
What about the person allowing someone else to use his or her address? As already addressed by many others here, usually NO problem but in some situations it can lead to suspicions and inquiries . . . or, I'd add, a formal investigation.
There is NO hint of this in the OP's situation, BUT if IRCC has identified multiple people using the same address and has suspicions, perceiving the possibility that the address is being fraudulently used pursuant to agreement or a scheme, there is the possibility this matter will be referred to the RCMP or CBSA for a formal investigation, both into whether there is immigration fraud involved and/or criminal fraud, and if so, WHO is a party to the fraud. Remember, several of the fraudulent schemes exposed in the last decade involved arrangements between the crooked consultant and various others who agreed to allowing their address be used . . . this diffused the addresses being used, making it more difficult for CIC/IRCC to discover the scheme . . . the person whose address was used being paid a type of commission, easy money. Except, some of those who just allowed a consultant to use their address have ended up spending time in secure public housing, the kind with bars on the windows if there are windows.
As I noted in my previous post, my sense is that IRCC has finally developed electronic tools to identify intersecting data, like common addresses, telephone numbers, and employers.
