If they actually lived there on the dates they claim, it's not misrepresenting anything. There doesn't even have to be a date on when the rental agreement was physically signed... just what the dates of residency are.wowsers said:
Canadian sponsoring british boyfriend who met traveling.
- Thread starter Jason12345
- Start date
You cannot lawfully backdate a document. So far as I recollect (I have long since retired from practice) the only exception is when a document is created by an unauthorised agent and it is later ratified by the principal. I have certainly come across lawyers who risk their necks by backdating documents, for example to avoid penalties for late stamping, but it is a criminal offence to do so and not at all recommended behaviour! Agreed that a tenancy agreement does not need a date but if it is dated that amounts to an assertion that it was made on that date, and if that is not true it is a misrepresentation, and fraudulent as well. Anyway, all they need is a correctly dated document, such as a letter from the parents, stating that they were cohabiting at their property between such and such dates.Rob_TO said:
I would just leave a signature date or doc created date off it completely. The only dates required would be the term of tenancy.wowsers said:
Its up to the OP if they want to include an official rental agreement, or just hope a signed letter is sufficient. I've been reading many cases here recently of applicants (even visa-exempt) being asked for additional proofs of cohabitation by the visa office. And these applicants had already included simple letters as you mentioned. So that's the reason I would personally go with an actual official-looking rental agreement as they are so easy to do anyways.
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/318800/Contract+Law/Is+It+Permissible+To+Backdate+The+Effective+Date+Of+Awowsers said:
Courts respect the parties' decision to backdate since giving effect to backdating provisions respects the parties' intentions as well as their freedom of contract.
You have misunderstood the article you have quoted. It is concerned with A and B entering into a contract under which a term of the contract (in the case of the contract being discussed in the article an exclusion clause in a life insurance policy) is to take effect from an earlier date; perfectly lawful but not what this is all about. The issue here is whether it is lawful for the parties to a contract (here a tenancy agreement proposed to be entered into between A as landlord and B as tenant) to date the contract incorrectlly to deceive CIC as a third party. Look at the second section of the article discussing the case of Re Rovet, where the parties tried to do what is being suggested here, resulting in the solicitor being suspended for 12 months!canuck_in_uk said:
Except that they aren't trying to deceive CIC. They DID LIVE TOGETHER AT THE PARENTS' HOUSE DURING THAT TIME. Are you really going to argue that making a contract that states the truth is deception??wowsers said:
Re Rovet is a completely different situation. How you can think this is the same thing is beyond me. It would be if they were attempting to deceive CIC about the actual time they cohabited but they aren't.
Quote me the Canadian law that shows backdating a contract with the consent of both parties to start from the actual effective date is illegal. Until then, what you are saying is just your opinion from when you practiced law awhile ago in a different country.
Well, I was in practice in the law for 45 years and still know a bit about it! However I am not attempting to prove a point of law, and certainly not to someone who seems incapable of understanding it. The OP has my advice and has the choice either to take it or leave it! It is free!
I am adding this bit after re-reading Rob_TO's advice and appreciating that there may be an ambiguity in it. There is a distinction between (1) a contract which includes a term which the parties agree is to have retrospective effect and (2) a contract which bears an incorrect date, backdated by agreement between the parties to suggest that it was executed on a date earlier than that on which it was in fact executed. He may have been referring to the former whilst I understood him to mean the latter. I agree that X and Y can without acting dishonestly and without misrepresenting the facts enter into a contract (here a tenancy agreement) under which they agree that the tenancy is to take effect retrospectively (from an earlier date), though I doubt, without looking it up, whether the parties can by that means create a status (their status as tenants) retrospectively. And anyway there is no point in going to the trouble of doing it that way when it is sufficient to prove that the OP and his girlfriend were living together at her parents' house without the benefit of a tenancy, a fact which they can prove simply by producing signed statements from themselves and the parents and anyone else who knows the facts. Creating a tenancy retrospectively, even if possible by law, adds nothing to their case.
I am adding this bit after re-reading Rob_TO's advice and appreciating that there may be an ambiguity in it. There is a distinction between (1) a contract which includes a term which the parties agree is to have retrospective effect and (2) a contract which bears an incorrect date, backdated by agreement between the parties to suggest that it was executed on a date earlier than that on which it was in fact executed. He may have been referring to the former whilst I understood him to mean the latter. I agree that X and Y can without acting dishonestly and without misrepresenting the facts enter into a contract (here a tenancy agreement) under which they agree that the tenancy is to take effect retrospectively (from an earlier date), though I doubt, without looking it up, whether the parties can by that means create a status (their status as tenants) retrospectively. And anyway there is no point in going to the trouble of doing it that way when it is sufficient to prove that the OP and his girlfriend were living together at her parents' house without the benefit of a tenancy, a fact which they can prove simply by producing signed statements from themselves and the parents and anyone else who knows the facts. Creating a tenancy retrospectively, even if possible by law, adds nothing to their case.
As was mentioned, many people recently from this site applying common-law, have been asked by their visa offices to submit MORE proof of cohabitation. Many of these people only submitted letters from their landlords/family where they were staying, and to the visa office it was NOT sufficient.wowsers said:
To get quickest possible processing time, you need to submit the strongest application you can in the hopes the visa office will not delay anything while they ask you for more info.
There is no question that an official tenancy/rental contract is far better proof of residency and cohabitation vs a signed letter from a family member/landlord. So for this reason I would highly recommend the OP here to put their proof of residency at the parents house as a tenancy contract. It's so easy to do, there is zero reason not to.
And as I said, there is no need for a date beside the signatures. The dates of tenancy are the only dates required on the contract.
Ah, so I'm incapable of understanding a "point of law" that you won't or can't prove... Well, that clears everything right up.wowsers said: