Punishment seems very harsh . . .
I am here for guidance and discussing few things that I witnessed
The situation where PR applicants fail to disclose a marital partner or dependent, especially where a marriage takes place after applying but prior to landing, is not uncommon. The consequences are indeed severe, even "harsh." That said, generally, at least so far as we see these cases reported, IRCC does not proceed to terminate the PR's status based on the misrepresentation (the PR having overtly or by omission misrepresenting their marital status). It could, however, and I vaguely recall some cases in which it has.
On the more favourable side of things, I also vaguely recall some isolated instances in which there was relief, based on H&C considerations, from the ban of sponsoring a family member who was not declared and examined prior to the PR's landing. HOWEVER, this may be limited to cases allowing sponsorship of an undeclared child in extenuating circumstances. Even then, even in extenuating circumstances, such relief is the
exception, and a very uncommon if not rare exception.
At the least, what is reported tends to indicate the ban on sponsoring an undeclared marital partner is almost always enforced, and perhaps so much so it is virtually always.
As
@armoured more or less intimated, what the law should be is one thing, and that is indeed something oft times discussed in some topics here.
But relative to addressing how to best navigate the system, trying to understand what happened, why, what will happen, what options there are, then what matters is what the rules actually are and how they are applied. For these questions what the law should be is not relevant.
In any event, yes, the consequences are harsh. But they are not actually punitive . . . there is no imprisonment. No criminal charges let alone convictions. And as I noted, it appears this does not typically result in proceedings to terminate the PR's status.
But yes, the door is shut on a family class sponsorship for PR status in Canada.
That is how it is. I suspect reiterating it comes across harsh. Not nearly so harsh as the reality for those affected. Like you it seems. Potentially having to give up plans (if not the dream) of living a life in Canada, in order to live life with one's partner (unless the partner can qualify for and independently obtain status in Canada).
What About An Innocent Oversight?
Some may think this is a tangent deserving more attention than it typically gets. But then proceed to frame the issue in terms of whether the mistake deserves the penalty imposed.
And, after all, the Canadian government has also made a mistake: it has allowed an individual to land and become a Permanent Resident of Canada even though not all of that individual's dependents have been examined as required by law. Remember, IRCC does not decide or choose what the law is. Remember that IRCC is bound by the law as much as those applying for status in Canada. The law requires IRCC to examine ALL dependents before granting a Foreign National PR status. IRCC failed to do that.
This could lead to comparing relative culpability . . . who is to blame? Skipping that for a bit (albeit acknowledging that obviously, in these cases the failure to examine a dependent is more about the sponsor's failure to even declare the dependent than IRCC's failure to do what the law mandates) . . . I am not sure, not at all sure, but I suspect there is a remedy.
But probably NOT the remedy you were contemplating.
You can renounce your PR status. And start from scratch. Reapply for PR. Properly list your dependents, including your spouse, so they can be examined.
To be honest, I have not seen any reports about anyone pursuing this. I do not know why not. I wonder what becomes of people in these situations. Is living in Canada worth more than love? Or do most just give up on a life in Canada?
I really am curious why we have seen no reports from PRs in this situation just starting over. As long as the renouncing of PR status occurs BEFORE any formal allegations of misrepresentation, the prior history should have minimal if any impact on a new PR application (acknowledging that I am not sure this is how it would go, and frankly I would talk to a lawyer about this before doing it).
But in terms of what "
penalty" should be imposed, or what is "
fair," perhaps contract law offers an illustrative analogy: if there is a mutual mistake underlying a contract, the remedy is novation, setting the contract aside. IRCC completed the process pursuant to which you became a PR based on the erroneous premise ALL your dependents were properly examined. You similarly claim your role in that process was innocent, that your failure to have your spouse examined (as the law requires) was an innocent oversight. OK. Set aside the landing. Start over. Including having your spouse examined.
But there is no provision in the law for this. Well, except the landing can be effectively set aside by renouncing PR status and starting over. Starting over declaring your marital partner, and your marital partner then going through the dependent examination procedure.
I am not an expert. I do not know if this would really work. I would go over it with a lawyer before trying it.
As for the merits relative to culpability:
when did they stopped sending out COPRs which had the clear indication of “marital
Status” on it?
Even though, as
@armoured notes, the specific content of the documents in your particular case is not on the table, here, so in regards to your situation no one here can definitively declare the amount of respective culpability, despite that we do now that in one form or another PR visa applications include a provision in the signature box that requires the applicant to not only affirm the information provided is "
true, correct and complete," but also that the applicant agrees "
to advise" IRCC "
if any information on this form changes . . . " Change in marital status is a big one. No need for anyone to remind or emphasize this.
As for the information in the CoPR . . . well, let's not quibble. I expect you signed verifying that the information (mostly vital statistics and other key details like date of birth) was true That almost certainly included a notation as to marital status (even if one had to cross-refence the coding).
