Can landlord deny me the letter?

[mastersboy]

I live in Ontario. My spouse & I signed a joined lease with an apartment building (owned by a firm headquartered in another city). The original lease period was 1 year. At the completion of 1 year lease, I approached the manager and asked to renew the lease. I was told there is no need since if you still occupy the apartment after the lease completion the lease rolls on to a month-to-month basis. I checked the original lease and it indeed was a clause in there.

Now, we have been living here for 3 years. I recently approached the landlord to please write me a letter confirming that I have been living here since 2017, and to mention that the original lease was extended on monthly basis as per clause X of the original lease. They refused to provide such a letter. The only thing they are providing is a printed rent statement with printed signature showing rent payments for all the months I have been living here.

I need a more formal looking document to prove my residency for immigration purposes, and I assume they like to see signed leases or singed and dated documents. I have tried pleading with the building management but they would not cooperate. What are my options?

I even out together a letter for them, but they wont sign it. Any help would be great!

Inviting @dpenabill to answer. Thanks in advance!

 

[ContactFront]

Landlord is under no obligation to provide you with such a letter.
There are other documents you can use to prove residency, bank statements, utility bills, etc.

 

[mastersboy]

Landlord is under no obligation to provide you with such a letter.
There are other documents you can use to prove residency, bank statements, utility bills, etc.

I am told it is an standard practice in Ontario to roll over the one-year lease to a month-to-month basis upon completion if the tenant is still occupying the rental unit. So, IRCC must be aware of this and it shouldn't be a surprise to them? And of course, we have plenty of utility bills etc. to prove our residence.

Thanks!

 

[dpenabill]

recently approached the landlord to please write me a letter confirming that I have been living here since 2017 . . .

I need a more formal looking document to prove my residency for immigration purposes, and I assume they like to see signed leases or singed and dated documents. I have tried pleading with the building management but they would not cooperate. What are my options?

I am told it is an standard practice in Ontario to roll over the one-year lease to a month-to-month basis upon completion if the tenant is still occupying the rental unit. So, IRCC must be aware of this and it shouldn't be a surprise to them? And of course, we have plenty of utility bills etc. to prove our residence.

Obviously, as others have responded, generally individuals cannot be compelled to provide or sign such documents. And it makes sense that a landlord would be reluctant to sign such a document prepared by a tenant . . . particularly since generally landlords do not keep tabs on whether one of tenants has actually been physically residing in the premises every month over the course of years. Note: original lease plus proof of rental payments documents the residential interest in the place of abode. Whether or not you were actually spending your days and nights there, actually living at that residence, is a separate issue, and not for a landlord to attest to (with exceptions depending on extent of personal interactions between tenant and landlord).

And, frankly, such a letter is just as likely to raise suspicion as be considered persuasive. It would appear, on its face, to be manufactured evidence.

IF, with a lot of emphasis on IF, if and when IRCC requests evidence to support a PR's claims about time spent IN Canada, IRCC is asking for OBJECTIVE RECORDS, not documents created after the fact purporting to affirm facts supporting the PR. Sure, letters and such can be good evidence, and generally must be considered, BUT if they are rather obviously created after the fact to be evidence of earlier facts, and especially if they purport to assert facts beyond what the author would ordinarily be a personal witness to, that tends to weaken their probative weight (with some exceptions, such as letters from professionals simply recounting factual details about specific events or transactions, including dates and places, but even then their probative weight goes specifically to documenting specific events at specific times, not sweeping conclusions about where someone was over the course of months).

BUT that "IF" also warrants some serious attention. Relative to PR RO compliance assessments, IRCC does not appear to challenge PRs about their accounting of time in Canada UNLESS IRCC perceives actual reason to suspect significant inaccuracies . . . tending to indicate misrepresentation.

Which is to say, with emphasis, the PR's BEST evidence is to submit an ACCURATE accounting of days actually IN Canada. If the PR does this, the likelihood of a problem is rather LOW. IF, in contrast, IF the PR's accounting deviates from what is accurate significantly, the odds of a problem loom larger and more problematic, and in that event, evidence of renting an abode in Canada is not likely to change the calculation much.

So, to be frank, I doubt you "need a more formal looking document to prove my residency for immigration purposes." I cannot guess whether you are overthinking things, looking for extra assurances, or there are real reasons to be concerned. But a letter as you describe is probably not what is needed.

 

[megalomax]

Can telephone bills be enough for someone like me that rents a room only?

 

[dpenabill]

Can telephone bills be enough for someone like me that rents a room only?

Enough for what?

Telephone bills may be presented as evidence IF, IF a PR is asked to submit evidence/documentation to support the PR's accounting of days present in Canada attendant a formal determination of PR Residency Obligation compliance. Such evidence to be considered along with all the other evidence.

Other evidence is likely to have far more influence than telephone bills. And some telephone bills will be stronger evidence than other telephone bills. BUT such evidence alone does not tend to prove much.

Work or school records tending to document an individual's presence and activity in Canada, for example, would have a lot more weight. And the absence of such records showing presence and activity in Canada could also tend to carry a lot of weight (negative weight).

BUT none of this matters much in the routine case. It is NOT common for a PR's accounting of days present in Canada to be overtly challenged by IRCC UNLESS there are real, substantive reasons for IRCC to suspect the PR of misrepresentation. Whether or not the suspicion rises to the level of proceeding with a misrepresentation investigation, or only rises to the level of seriously doubting the PR's accounting. The latter more common than the former, but neither all that common . . . since, again, this is about cases in which IRCC perceives real, substantive reasons to suspect the PR of misrepresentation. AND this is really RARE if the PR has in fact completely and accurately reported all time in and all time outside Canada.

So, again, the best insurance the PR can obtain is to COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY REPORT ALL TRAVEL DATES (thus, obviously, the PR must be in compliance with the RO before making a PR card application). Beyond that, for a PR who is really cutting-it-close and who has genuine reasons to worry about the sufficiency of his or her evidence to document presence in Canada (IF evidence is requested), the better approach then is to simply STAY in Canada longer and build a stronger case BEFORE applying for a new PR card or BEFORE going abroad needing to apply for a PR Travel Document in order to make the trip back to Canada.

If keeping or losing PR status is really at risk, telephone records are NOT likely to make much difference.



REMINDER: The Importance of Being Settled IN Canada Permanently:

Obviously, the extent to which it appears (or does not appear) the PR is settled in Canada PERMANENTLY is a big, big factor in any PR RO case where there is a concern about just how many days the PR was present IN Canada. This factor may be second only to whether or not the PR has in fact been IN Canada more than 730 days within the preceding five years.

Actual presence in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years is ENOUGH. So evidence sufficient to PROVE this amount of presence is enough. Thus, if the PR has solid evidence to document presence for at least 730 days, that does it. That meets the requirements.

BUT if there is some question, some doubt, about whether or not the PR was actually, physically present in Canada for at least 730 days within the relevant five years, the next most significant factor can be, often will be, the extent to which it appears the PR has finally come to Canada to STAY and is settled in Canada PERMANENTLY.

This factor can dramatically influence how the evidence is weighed. Even if the decision-maker makes no reference to it, the presence or absence of an overall indication that the PR is IN Canada to STAY, settled PERMANENTLY in Canada, colours the big picture and tends to help bring the individual pieces of the puzzle into focus. What this amounts to is not complicated: in a case where there is some potential doubt about the PR's compliance with the RO, the more it appears the PR is settled in Canada permanently the less skepticism, the less doubt, IRCC is likely to have regarding the PR's evidence of presence in Canada. On the other hand, if it appears the PR is manipulating the system, not really settling into Canada permanently, DUH! That increases the risk IRCC officials will have concerns if not outright doubts about the PR's accounting of the facts, and will be more skeptical in weighing the evidence. No advanced degrees in linear algebra necessary.