Common Law Separation - condition 51

[screech339]

Are you telling me that politicians sometimes say things but don't follow through on them?? That they will say things just to get votes??

<kidding>

I know eh? I was trying to illustrate to pOppet that just because someone says something, especially polticians, doesn't mean they will follow through. Actions speaks louder than words.

 

[screech339]

exactly. just because it's being said, doesn't mean it will actually happen. politicians can't just wave a wand and make an immigration rule go away. there is a reason it was put into place, whether people agree with it or not. i'd imagine there is a process to undoing certain things. more than likely we are not going to see it removed for some time, applicants need to apply understanding the rule most likely WILL apply to them, and those currently with the condition need to abide by the rule until CIC says otherwise...

on a side note, my condition is up next week (yippeee!!!). technically, does it end ON the anniversary date of my landing or the day after? meaning - does it end at the start of the day or at the end? this is more of a curiosity sort of thing, as i have no intentions of leaving my life here...

I think technically, conditional PR ends the day after the 2 year period. Landed on August 23, 2014, the conditional PR lasts until August 23, 2016. The Condition is gone August 24, 2016.
Look at it another way. Common Law status doesn't start until the day after the 1 year anniversary of living together (on the 366th day of living together or 367th day for leap year). Same principle applies.

 

[CDNPR2014]

I think technically, conditional PR ends the day after the 2 year period. Landed on August 23, 2014, the conditional PR lasts until August 23, 2016. The Condition is gone August 24, 2016.
Look at it another way. Common Law status doesn't start until the day after the 1 year anniversary of living together (on the 366th day of living together or 367th day for leap year). Same principle applies.

thanks for your input. that's what i'm guessing too. so, technically it ends a week from today, not a week from yesterday. wooo!!!!!

 

[scrivener]

Hi Everyone,

I gained permanent residency in February 2015 through common law sponsorship. I have a condition 51 written on my permanent residency papers that I have to co-habit with my common law partner for a period of 2 years from the day I gained my permanent residency. That means this condition will expire on February 2017.

Situation: I moved out in May 2016 (because the relationship wasn't working - he didn't want to marry me and have kids among other reasons). I contacted the immigration to let them know that I moved out permanently and in doing so broke my condition 51.

They have asked me to send them the following:

In order to further assess your case, we require supporting information. Please provide me with the following document(s)/information:

1. Provide a statutory declaration about the incidents that lead you to request an exception to your conditions for permanent residence. Indicate the dates and periods you were not residing together.

2. Provide the police report(s) pertaining to any incidents in which the police were called, or a report was filed.

3. Any Emergency protection orders in place

4. Provide any court documents detailing the charges, and dismissal of charges if applicable

5. Provide any doctor letters (incident reports) if any.

6. Provide any letters or notes that you have received from any counselling.

7. Provide any information on any threats or contact from your spouse, by way of e-mail, text messaging, letters or any type of contact.

8. Provide any witness statements.

9. Provide any information about your financial situation.

10. Provide any other information that you would like to provide in support of your request.

I have documents from the doctor, counsellor, my friends, my bank statements and my statutory declaration. How will they assess my application to apply for an 'exception' from this condition ? What happens if they deny my application ? Do I have to go to court ? Will there be interviews ? Has anyone gone through this ? I am not seeking any money for joint assets from my common law partner (furniture, cycle, joint account.. etc.).

I want to know what my chances are as I tried my best to make the relationship work, but my sponsor couldn't care less. They have given me one month deadline to supply all relevant documentation by.

-Thank you everyone !

What exactly did you tell them? You might be able to claim neglect. I know someone who has gone through the process.

 

[zardoz]

What exactly did you tell them? You might be able to claim neglect. I know someone who has gone through the process.

Because they differed in their perception of what they wanted for the future? Don't forget also that the OP moved out, apparently of their own free will.

 

[p0ppet]

I kind of put this thread out of my mind for awhile, because talking to some people on this board feels like trying to debate a brick wall, but.....

keesio and screech339, there's absolutely no reason to be snide jerks. It's unnecessary and it helps exactly no one.

Yes, there's a possibility that Mccallum shrugs and goes 'oops, just kidding!' But when he explicitly tells a room full of immigration lawyers at an immigration law conference 'we are getting rid of this rule,' and when several months after that he says at an immigration consultation 'we're getting rid of this rule, the rule change is literally going through the regulatory process right now,' the chances are pretty slim. (And it's a regulation, not a law enacted by parliament, so this is progress - they draft a rule change, then it goes up in the Canada Gazette for comment, then final review/revision happens and the regulation goes up for signature.)

I get the feeling that some people on this board desperately want to believe IRCC won't remove C51 no matter how much proof victim's advocates and women's rights orgs and community support organizations and legal clinics offer that it's a harmful policy that enables domestic abuse without much actual benefit, but when you get snide or sarcastic or nasty about it you just look petty on top of the callousness that goes with 'a few hypothetical fraudsters are more important to me than many, many actual domestic abuse victims.'


potential_resident, any luck with the lawyer?

 

[keesio]

Yes, there's a possibility that Mccallum shrugs and goes 'oops, just kidding!' But when he explicitly tells a room full of immigration lawyers at an immigration law conference 'we are getting rid of this rule,' and when several months after that he says at an immigration consultation 'we're getting rid of this rule, the rule change is literally going through the regulatory process right now,' the chances are pretty slim. (And it's a regulation, not a law enacted by parliament, so this is progress - they draft a rule change, then it goes up in the Canada Gazette for comment, then final review/revision happens and the regulation goes up for signature.)

Geez, do you remember the whole GST thing with Liberals way back (maybe you were not in Canada that far back)? Do you know how many times they said they'd get rid of it? And it was on their official party platform too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/then-now-liberals-on-the-gst/article4303372/

I'm not saying Condition 51 will not get eliminated. I can certainly happen. But the sole argument that because McCallum/Liberals promised to get rid of it, it will definitely happen only needs to look at past Liberal promises.

I get the feeling that some people on this board desperately want to believe IRCC won't remove C51 no matter how much proof victim's advocates and women's rights orgs and community support organizations and legal clinics offer that it's a harmful policy that enables domestic abuse without much actual benefit, but when you get snide or sarcastic or nasty about it you just look petty on top of the callousness that goes with 'a few hypothetical fraudsters are more important to me than many, many actual domestic abuse victims.'

"Hypothetical", huh? Ok, now I am starting to get irritated here. Do you think Conditional 51 came about because of some "hypothetical" reasons? No, it came from some very very public cases of abused sponsors who lobbied the government for years to do something. I know someone who pretty much had their life destroyed because of this. Yeah, she was naive and didn't listen, I know. Sorry, but these people are real. You may think they should have known better and there was no real "abuse" but anyway it did really happen. Obviously you have experienced the other side of Condition 51 and that's terrible too. But that is it - there is no easy solution. A rules comes into place where one side feels neglected. We've debated 51 enough on other threads before and you have your opinion (it sucks) and I have mine (there are pros and cons).

-----

EDIT: I'm starting to remember the details regarding the complaint filed against CIC that brought Condition 51. The big issue was not that the applicants kept their PR, it was that the jilted sponsors were stuck financially supporting the applicants for 3 years. In one of the cases, the sponsor was this artist who had minimal income and she was stuck paying back the government all the welfare money her ex-husband received. She called it a double slap in the face (one by the ex-husband, the other by the government). CIC's resolution was Condition 51 (deport the applicant to relieve the sponsor of financial responsibility)

 

[screech339]

If you think 3 years of financial responsibility was bad. Try 10 years. I happen to know of one person that was stuck paying back for 10 years. This was before it was changed to 3 years.

 

[keesio]

If you think 3 years of financial responsibility was bad. Try 10 years. I happen to know of one person that was stuck paying back for 10 years. This was before it was changed to 3 years.

10 years? Wow. I knew it was 10 for parents. Didn't know it used to be spouses also