Common-Law relationship

[IntLove]

Hi,

At question 10 of IMM 0008 GENERIC, they as if you already have been married or in a common-law relationship. My wife lived 11 months with her ex-boyfriend but she had a child with him.

I saw this piece of information today :http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/prsnl-nf/mrtl-eng.html

Should we write that she was in a common-law relationship or not? Also, do we need some kind of paper prooving the separation?

 

[Aroundtown22]

Did she file her taxes as a common law couple or no?

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your post as saying that she lived with her ex boyfriend for 11 YEARS. 11 Months does not qualify for common law.

 

[iarblue]

You are not common law until after 1 year.

 

[IntLove]

Thanks for your answer iarblue, but did you look at my link? Having a children change your status to common-law relationship when you live in Canada. My question is for immigration purpose, is it like this too(because my link is about tax report so only applicable when you are a canadian citizen)? I am thinking yes because on the "Supplement to Schedule 1" included in the Latin America specific guide, they ask the following :

1. Have you previously been married or in a common-law relationship?

2. Do you have any child resulting from this previous marriage or common-law relationship?

The way the second question is asked seems to imply that having a children automatically classify you as common-law relationship. But I know that a lot of people says like you told me right now... I just want to confirm if it is because everyone repeat what other people said previously or if it is because they really know the answer. I know there is one big PDF document that explain in details many things about the immigration... what they consider common-law and conjugal partner... but I lost track of this document.

 

[IntLove]

I found the PDF document : http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

They only talk about the 1 year duration. That question on the supplement to schedule 1 is really strange. Should my girlfriend write she was not in a common-law and that she had a child resulting from this non-existing common-law... or not declare the child on that document?

 

[rjessome]

I found the PDF document : http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

They only talk about the 1 year duration. That question on the supplement to schedule 1 is really strange. Should my girlfriend write she was not in a common-law and that she had a child resulting from this non-existing common-law... or not declare the child on that document?

The child must be declared. She doesn't have to have been married or in a common law relationship to have a child.

I think your confusion is making me confused! What supplement? Do you mean page 2? Her ex wouldn't be declared there anyway even if they were common-law for CIC purposes. But her child must be declared.

 

[IntLove]

I will try to clarify a bit

My wife is brazilian. She lived 11months with her ex-boyfriend(from when she was 3 month pregnant untill the kid was 5 month old). She needs to follow the instruction in IMM 3908(Latin America specific guide) to fill her sponsorship forms. At the page 8 of that document, there is a page to fill that is called "Supplement to Schedule 1 - Background / Declaration". On this form, there are 2 questions:

1. Have you previously been married or in a common-law relationship?

2. Do you have any child resulting from this previous marriage or common-law relationship?

I really don't know what to answer to thoses two questions for a few reasons.

The schedule 1 containt every information that need to be verified throughly about her person, but there are no question about the children. They obiviously want to verify some more information about childrens for people coming from Latin America since it is included as a supplement to the schedule 1 in their specific guide. If we read the OP2 guide, they state that a common-law relationship is ONLY if you leave for 1 year with the person. On another federal website, they say that having a child also make you count as common-law. What really confuse me is that it seems we have to answer "No" to the first question, but it feel strange to say "No" to the second question too... since there was a child..but not from a common-law relationship.

I hope I am a bit more clear now.

[EDIT] My question is not about declaring the child or not in general.. since he is declared in IMM 0008 and IMM 5406. My question is what do I need to answer that special document in my particular case.

 

[Aroundtown22]

I would say that she answer no to both of those questions. The first one is obvious as she was never in a common-law relationship (is there even such a status in Brazil, if yes then is it a one year requirement like Canada?) The second question is also no. She has a child from the previous relationship BUT it was not a common-law relationship.

Having a child and living together doesn't automatically mean you're in a common-law relationship.

 

[BeShoo]

Common Law Marriage (living together)

The new Brazilian Law Code recognizes a "stable union", defined as the relationship being "recognized and known". Judges look at each case individually, but generally speaking, a relationship of 2 to 3 years is considered a stable union, especially if the couple has children together.
http://www.embaixada-americana.org.br/index.php?action=materia&id=1942&submenu=7&itemmenu=58

As far as Canadian law goes, the definitions are different depending on which laws you are talking about. For the federal income tax act, having a child and living in a conjugal arrangement makes you common law partners immediately. Provincial laws have various requirements for a relationship to be considered a common-law spousal/partner one. There is a good summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada.

I think what really applies in this case is the definition in IRPA, which specifies one year of continuous cohabitation. If you were in such a relationship, you'd need to prove that that relationship has ended.

 

[rjessome]

Ok, I understand you now. The only definition of common law you need to be concerned with is the one found in IRPA. The answers to these questions are No and No.

 

[canadianwoman]

The definition of 'common-law' varies according to the government department, the province, and even the country. For dealing with CIC, I suggest you use CIC's definition of 'common law', not the tax department's definition.
If you are really unsure (about this or any question on the forms) you can always attach an explanation. This way even if you inadvertently checked off the 'wrong' box according to the visa officer looking at the file, they will see that you were not trying to trick them.
So check off 'no' and 'no', and attach an explanation that you chose 'no' because they were living together for only 11 months; or check off 'yes' and 'yes' and attach the explanation that you were not sure which to check, because they were living together for only 11 months.