Shouldn't the cousins address be the one on the form then? Because the form says "Address of the place of employment" ?
There was an earlier discussion in the forum about this and the consensus was that the physical place of work is relevant. That does
not mean of course it's the absolute truth, it was just the conclusion we arrived at.
The argument was this: Assume that someone
- Lives in Mississauga
- Works in a Toronto office
- But for a company who is registered in Calgary
In that case, common sense (that's all we used, so we might be wrong) told us that IRCC would expect the Toronto address in the form because that is where the person actually worked.
In the OPs situation it could be something like
- Lives in Mississauga
- Works at their home in Mississauga
- But the company is registered at the cousin's house
I don't see why the cousin's house address would be relevant. Since that was not their "place of employment". That would be their "employer".
Or in other words: Does everyone who works in an Apple store anywhere in the world list "Cupertino, California" as their place of employment? I think not.
I think there is a reason why it says "address of the place of employment" and NOT "address of the employer".