I just got PR, can I sponsor my girlfriend who I live with more than 3 years?

[Smsm81]

No it's not possible. Since they were in fact common-law before, and she wasn't declared on his application, she is now banned forever under family class. It would not matter if they lived together 1 year again, or if they now got married even.

The only way to sponsor her now is to completely lie on the application about ever living together in the past, so basically committing immigration fraud.

Common-law is not "marriage". It is common-law. Many people do not believe in marriage for their own personal reasons, so are quite happy to spend their entire lives with someone as their common-law partner.

It gets even more confusing in that the 1-year rule is used for immigration and tax purposes. Then on top of that, each province in Canada has their own rules that could require 3 years cohabitation to be recognized by the province as common-law, when it comes to separation legal issues (like splitting assets). In some provinces like Quebec there is no such thing as common-law.

But since CIC and CRA are FEDERAL institutions governing ALL of Canada, then for CIC and CRA purposes everyone in Canada needs to follow the 1-year rule for immigration and taxes.

They don't have to lie or commit a fraud. If they could get married and mention that they lived together some time before, so simply they saying the truth and won't effect their application.
Common law is recognized in Quebec http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/common-law-couples-making-life-together-without-being-married

 

[rhcohen2014]

How can that be proven in either direction? 13mths in the lease is shown as jointed. Relationship can be shown either way.

I would think it's pretty simple to prove whether a relationship was conjungal/marriage like or just roommates. I assume this is why CIC requests so much relationship "proof" from commonlaw couples. if they are a romantic couple, they would have pictures that show this, gone on trips together, be able to get letters from family members and friends who attest to the relationship, have significant communication between them, etc. if they were just strictly roommates, they would have separate finances, and relationship "evidence" would look platonic. ie: no romantic trips together, no love letters to eachother, no pictures appearing as a couple.

In the case of the op, their relationship "proof" would most likely look more like a romantic relationship since they have been together for 6 years. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to say, "no CIC, we are really just roommates, even though we act as a romantic couple in front of friends and family".

 

[keesio]

Seriously! When I think of marriage, I consider both straight and gay marriages, both of which are allowed in Canada. Then you have those who are separated from their spouse going through a divorce. In this situation, if you're already considered to be legally married, then how can the government consider a common law marriage, simultaneously? Wouldn't that fall under polygamy? To be honest, those are the only 3 considerations I see and took into account when referring to why they wouldn't get married, but would take on a 3yr financial commitment.

The common-law thing tripped me up too because it never dawned on me that just living together with someone for a year can equal a relationship of a married couple. But as to why CIC recognizes it, there are many cases where common-law is the only option. In the west, with now gay marriage becoming legal, it is a non-issue. But in places like the Philippines, which does not recognize divorce, if you got married there and then separated from that person, the next relationship you can do is common-law since that person is still married to their first spouse and can't get divorced. So that person can be both married and in a common-law relationship with two different people there. This is totally legal since common-law isn't marriage (so no polygamy) and CIC recognizes this. This allows the person to be able to sponsor their common-law partner to Canada if the opportunity arises. There are also many places around the world where gay marriage is not legal at all. They have the option for common-law sponsorship. Or if the area is so hostile to that kind of union where there is open hostility, then there is even the conjugal option. The conjugal option would never fly for applicant from the west but for someone in a place where even open acknowledgement of being gay is dangerous, conjugal is totally an option.

In any case, I always have sympathy for people caught in cases like the OP. I'll be honest, if I had a girlfriend that I lived with for over a year before I moved to Canada, I would never have thought to list her as common-law on my application. It simply would not have dawned on me. Fortunately I had no one then so it was a non-issue. This particular misrepresentation rule by CIC is the one rule I think is overly harsh when CIC in general is pretty lax.

 

[Rob_TO]

They don't have to lie or commit a fraud. If they could get married and mention that they lived together some time before, so simply they saying the truth and won't effect their application.

No, if they tell the truth their app will 100% be rejected as it's obvious they were in a common-law relationship before he landed as a PR, and she wasn't declared in the application. It doesn't matter if they now get married, what's done is done.

Common law is recognized in Quebec http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/common-law-couples-making-life-together-without-being-married

Quebec recognizes it in name only. Its the only province I think that does not recognize common-law as having same rights as a married couple. If you really read what you just posted, you'll see their "defacto union" offers hardly any of the protections a married couple would get.

In other provinces, after 1-3 years of living together you are common-law in the eyes of the provinces for legal purposes, and enjoy most of the same rights/protections as married couples.

 

[Rob_TO]

How can that be proven in either direction? 13mths in the lease is shown as jointed. Relationship can be shown either way.

In the cases with the CRA, they can do investigations into their personal life, and interview friends/family asking questions about their relationship, see if they have joint accounts, life insurance on each other, etc. It would all then need to be proven in court in front of a judge. There are LOTS of plain pieces of evidence you can gather, that will show if a couple is just roommates, or a couple.

With CIC they put burden of proof on the applicant. So if applying for PR in a simple case you have to prove you are common-law. If CIC is claiming you were previously common-law but got PR as single, then you have to prove you aren't common-law.

In some cases only the couple knows the truth. To them it's easily apparent if they were dating or just roommates during a period of living together. But in these cases of partners not being declared, many people lie and try to claim they were roommates when in fact they were a couple, so CIC has to do their best job to catch the misrepresentation.

 

[Smsm81]

No, if they tell the truth their app will 100% be rejected as it's obvious they were in a common-law relationship before he landed as a PR, and she wasn't declared in the application. It doesn't matter if they now get married, what's done is done.

Quebec recognizes it in name only. Its the only province I think that does not recognize common-law as having same rights as a married couple. If you really read what you just posted, you'll see their "defacto union" offers hardly any of the protections a married couple would get.

In other provinces, after 1-3 years of living together you are common-law and enjoy most of the same rights/protections as married couples.

I know many couples in Quebec who lives as common law and they do enjoy the same benefits as a married couple. Regarding separation and the rights attached to it yes it is true, there is no rights for common law couple but this isnt only in Quebec, it is in all Canada.

 

[Christoph100]

I would think it's pretty simple to prove whether a relationship was conjungal/marriage like or just roommates. I assume this is why CIC requests so much relationship "proof" from commonlaw couples. if they are a romantic couple, they would have pictures that show this, gone on trips together, be able to get letters from family members and friends who attest to the relationship, have significant communication between them, etc. if they were just strictly roommates, they would have separate finances, and relationship "evidence" would look platonic. ie: no romantic trips together, no love letters to eachother, no pictures appearing as a couple.

In the case of the op, their relationship "proof" would most likely look more like a romantic relationship since they have been together for 6 years. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to say, "no CIC, we are really just roommates, even though we act as a romantic couple in front of friends and family".

We have just gone full circle.... living together for 6yrs. Separate finances..and claimed by both parties as single for CRA. Simple matter of waiting the 13mths from a new agreed upon date for the "begining" of common law and all evidence submitted being from the agreed upon date only. Fraudulent submission but can not be proven.
"yes we lived together for 6yrs as room mates as per financial documents shown after 6yrs we became romantically involved" If you say the rental agreement proves otherwise then we are again back to square one with real room mates being considered under Common Law due to a joint rental agreement.

 

[keesio]

In other provinces, after 1-3 years of living together you are common-law in the eyes of the provinces for legal purposes, and enjoy most of the same rights/protections as married couples.

This is another thing I find maddening. The rules for when you become common-law vary by province! It is so easy to get tripped up here.

 

[saria1]

The common-law thing tripped me up too because it never dawned on me that just living together with someone for a year can equal a relationship of a married couple. But as to why CIC recognizes it, there are many cases where common-law is the only option. In the west, with now gay marriage becoming legal, it is a non-issue. But in places like the Philippines, which does not recognize divorce, if you got married there and then separated from that person, the next relationship you can do is common-law since that person is still married to their first spouse and can't get divorced. So that person can be both married and in a common-law relationship with two different people there. This is totally legal since common-law isn't marriage (so no polygamy) and CIC recognizes this. This allows the person to be able to sponsor their common-law partner to Canada if the opportunity arises. There are also many places around the world where gay marriage is not legal at all. They have the option for common-law sponsorship. Or if the area is so hostile to that kind of union where there is open hostility, then there is even the conjugal option. The conjugal option would never fly for applicant from the west but for someone in a place where even open acknowledgement of being gay is dangerous, conjugal is totally an option.

In any case, I always have sympathy for people caught in cases like the OP. I'll be honest, if I had a girlfriend that I lived with for over a year before I moved to Canada, I would never have thought to list her as common-law on my application. It simply would not have dawned on me. Fortunately I had no one then so it was a non-issue. This particular misrepresentation rule by CIC is the one rule I think is overly harsh when CIC in general is pretty lax.

All great points and scenarios that didn't come to mind. Thank you for all that clarification.

 

[rhcohen2014]

"yes we lived together for 6yrs as room mates as per financial documents shown after 6yrs we became romantically involved" If you say the rental agreement proves otherwise then we are again back to square one with real room mates being considered under Common Law due to a joint rental agreement.

no, sorry that's not what I meant. I misread the original post about the relationship. I thought they were romantically involved for 6 years while living together. i am not saying that living together for 6 years automatically makes the relationship a romantic one. i am saying the type of relationship they had would certainly come out when investigated. if they were romantic for 6 years, there will be a trail. if they were just roommates, then there wouldn't necessarily be solid proof that a romantic relationship had occurred.

 

[Christoph100]

no, sorry that's not what I meant. I misread the original post about the relationship. I thought they were romantically involved for 6 years while living together. i am not saying that living together for 6 years automatically makes the relationship a romantic one. i am saying the type of relationship they had would certainly come out when investigated. if they were romantic for 6 years, there will be a trail. if they were just roommates, then there wouldn't necessarily be solid proof that a romantic relationship had occurred.

Exactly what I am saying how can either direction be proven if the only evidence submitted is from the new agreed upon date of beginning of common law. Remember both parties involved have separate finances.. As for utility bills, shared bills does not point to romantic involvement either.

 

[saria1]

Exactly what I am saying how can either direction be proven if the only evidence submitted is from the new agreed upon date of beginning of common law. Remember both parties involved have separate finances.. As for utility bills, shared bills does not point to romantic involvement either.

I guess it gets super sticky if both parties, who reside together as roommates, have not been romantically involved in any long or short term relationship and enjoyed their "bachelorhood/bachelorette-hood" and engaged in a lot of outside promiscuous activity to meet their needs. How in the world do these two legitimate roommates prove they are not romantically involved to CIC?

 

[Christoph100]

I guess it gets super sticky if both parties, who reside together as roommates, have not been romantically involved in any long or short term relationship and enjoyed their "bachelorhood/bachelorette-hood" and engaged in a lot of outside promiscuous activity to meet their needs. How in the world do these two legitimate roommates prove they are not romantically involved to CIC?

My point exactly..

 

[Rob_TO]

I know many couples in Quebec who lives as common law and they do enjoy the same benefits as a married couple. Regarding separation and the rights attached to it yes it is true, there is no rights for common law couple but this isnt only in Quebec, it is in all Canada.

No, common-law couples in Quebec do NOT enjoy the same benefits as married couples. If you read the link posted just above, it clearly shows the numerous areas common-law and marriage is very different in Quebec.
It is very different in other provinces, where in most after 3 years a common-law couple then get most of the same rights as a married couple. It's only Quebec that doesn't do this.

This is another thing I find maddening. The rules for when you become common-law vary by province! It is so easy to get tripped up here.

Yes but that's only for legal purposes in case of future separation or pension benefits, or other provincially regulated areas. At least for CRA/CIC purpoess, it's 1 year standard for each and every person no matter what province.

 

[rhcohen2014]

Exactly what I am saying how can either direction be proven if the only evidence submitted is from the new agreed upon date of beginning of common law. Remember both parties involved have separate finances.. As for utility bills, shared bills does not point to romantic involvement either.

as suggested above, CIC can and will do their own investigation. social media can be a easy way to determine whether a couple is romantic or not, and many people are very open on social media. also, i'm sure they would check passport stamps and other travel records to see if they take the same time off. there are plenty of ways to prove one way or the other. I would imagine the fact that each person needs to provide their addresses for a certain period of time, any mention of the same address would prompt further investigation.