Ex-wife has changed name 4x - which version to use in IMM 008 / 5532

[spelunkahh]

Hello all!

We are slogging through the process of completing an outland spousal application. (Yay!)

My partner's ex-wife has changed her name twice since they were married. So she now uses neither her maiden name, nor her married name, but a completely different last name.

I'm wondering which of her last names we should use in the question:

Have you previously been married or in a common-law relationship? (yes). If yes, please provide the details for your previous spouse/common-law partner:

Last name: ???

Option A: use her married name (from their marriage) - which is the same name that is on their divorce certificate (which we'll have to include the application) or
Option B: use her current last name (which is not her maiden name)

I'm currently leaning towards Option A for continuity's sake but any advice would be appreciated!

 

[armoured]

Option A: use her married name (from their marriage) - which is the same name that is on their divorce certificate (which we'll have to include the application) or
Option B: use her current last name (which is not her maiden name)

I'm currently leaning towards Option A for continuity's sake but any advice would be appreciated!

Option A, include a short letter of explanation that she's changed her name since the divorce.

 

[steaky]

As in Harry's wife, I would say Option B, use her current last name, "Sussex". Include a short letter of explanation that she's changed her name since the divorce.

 

[armoured]

While I have a slightly different point of view on this one than @steaky, you'll notice the joint item in both our approaches: letter of explanation. I think either approach will probably work and the letter of explanation just helps close any gaps.

That said: here's why I think Option A is better. IRCC does not care (much) about the current name and identity of the ex-spouse (that said, I'd still provide, because their procedures may include putting the name into some system for checks).

What does IRCC care about and what is most relevant? That your partner is clearly and comprehensively documented as no longer married to the ex-spouse. Since the marriage and divorce documents will show the ex-partner's previous name, I think using that name is more parsimonious (in the data sense) and appropriate in this case. (But letter of explanation provides the info if needed, e.g. if IRCC for some reason/context does registry checks - however unlikely).

[As a thought experiment, what if your partner didn't know the ex-spouse had changed their name? Is anyone ever under the obligation to check if their ex-spouse has had name changes? My answer to both is basically 'not an issue.']

Again, both will probably work, but I'd still prefer A. Doesn't mean B won't work.

If the ex-partner was actually now a member of the royal family or extremely famous,or there were some other important reason, I might prefer B. I'm sure @steaky may have other reasons I might have missed, but I don't intend to argue the point (further), I don't think the difference is that critical.

 

[steaky]

Neither do I want to argue with @armoured but I'd still prefer B.