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

[handsup]

Yes, it's still fraud. You cannot rewrite the relationship history.

I would also add, that there are many cases on CANLII that give case law support to what has been communicated here.

Oh okay thank you so much , this thread is really an eye opener and I never knew this much about common law before, thanks to the OP and the ones who tried their best to clear the confusions.

Yes you are correct! I'd like to say thank you to Screech, Rob_to and Zardoz for helpful, non judgmental, engaging in open dialogue, responses. ;D

 

[screech339]

Correct and in that case they would be free to attempt the sponsorship providing they had their own rental agreements.

Having their own rental agreement means they are just roommates and it will spell out that they are not common law. For example, being roommates together for college purposes. As mentioned by zardoz, they would have to prove to CIC that they were not living together as common law. e.i. separate rental agreements, their own parents claiming their education cost in income tax filing, etc etc.

Screech339

 

[Majromax]

The main reason that this is such a big issue with regards to immigration is the following scenario.

3) The other is medically inadmissible due to excessive demand.

As I understand it, the spousal sponsorship class is exempt from the "excessive demand" restriction; this includes common-law and conjugal partners. See 38.2(a) of the IRPA. This does not apply to being a danger to public safety on health grounds.

 

[Christoph100]

Having their own rental agreement means they are just roommates and it will spell out that they are not common law. For example, being roommates together for college purposes. As mentioned by zardoz, they would have to prove to CIC that they were not living together as common law. e.i. separate rental agreements, their own parents claiming their education cost in income tax filing, etc etc.

Screech339

There is that possibility then even though that sort of proof is likely in non existence.
Very informative thread. Thanks everyone for your input.

Chris

 

[saria1]

Having their own rental agreement means they are just roommates and it will spell out that they are not common law. For example, being roommates together for college purposes. As mentioned by zardoz, they would have to prove to CIC that they were not living together as common law. e.i. separate rental agreements, their own parents claiming their education cost in income tax filing, etc etc.

Screech339

Scenario, many apartment complexes I've lived in list the roommate on the same lease. They run background checks on all the applicants to live in the apartment or rental property, but won't provide separate leases for each individual. The reason they do this, it legally puts them in the situation to evict only one member of the unit if one defaults and leaves the others with the lower locked in rate. They're (property owner, property manager) not in the business of renting rooms, but units. So they will only list all the occupants under one lease, so if one defaults, they're all evicted and the unit can be rented at full price. Make sense?

 

[zardoz]

As I understand it, the spousal sponsorship class is exempt from the "excessive demand" restriction; this includes common-law and conjugal partners. See 38.2(a) of the IRPA. This does not apply to being a danger to public safety on health grounds.

Absolutely correct.

 

[zardoz]

Scenario, many apartment complexes I've lived in list the roommate on the same lease. They run background checks on all the applicants to live in the apartment or rental property, but won't provide separate leases for each individual. The reason they do this, it legally puts them in the situation to evict only one member of the unit if one defaults and leaves the others with the lower locked in rate. They're (property owner, property manager) not in the business of renting rooms, but units. So they will only list all the occupants under one lease, so if one defaults, they're all evicted and the unit can be rented at full price. Make sense?

Yes, but we come back to the question of why a "roommate" would attempt to apply for permanent residency without including their partner in the application. CIC will consider that they "can't have it both ways" and as a result, the burden of proof on the applicants will be that much greater.

 

[Christoph100]

Scenario, many apartment complexes I've lived in list the roommate on the same lease. They run background checks on all the applicants to live in the apartment or rental property, but won't provide separate leases for each individual.

Exactly so according to Canadian law as its written and apartment owners that do this there are many people that fall under Common Law and do not know it as it can not be proven they are not "marriage like"

Sticky situation.

Chris

 

[screech339]

As I understand it, the spousal sponsorship class is exempt from the "excessive demand" restriction; this includes common-law and conjugal partners. See 38.2(a) of the IRPA. This does not apply to being a danger to public safety on health grounds.

Yes, spousal PR applicants get the exemption to the rule. But he was trying to illustrate the loophole, a PR can do to get around the excessive demand restrictions.

Here are two scenarios that can happen: Case in Point: Applicant is common law with someone who has an illness that requires a lot of serious medical attention.

1. The applicant applies for PR through other means outside spousal PR sponsorship and lists common law together as required by law. PR status is denied to both of them since the dependent has the medical problem that can cause excessive demand on medical grounds. This is the proper legal procedure.

2. Applicant files for PR alone as single. Qualifies for PR status and lands as PR. Applicant files for common law. The common law partner gets the medical excessive exemption through spousal PR sponsorship.

Don't you see the loophole?

 

[saria1]

Exactly so according to Canadian law as its written and apartment owners that do this there are many people that fall under Common Law and do not know it as it can not be proven they are not "marriage like"

Sticky situation.

Chris

Yes, very sticky!

 

[Rob_TO]

Thank you so much for detailed clarification. Okay just to get knowledge; if one has made such mistakes unintentionally then you told a way that to lie and as result committing the immigration fraud.
Is it possible too that the GF now returns back to her home country, the guy goes too and they marry there and the guy comes back to CA to sponsor her as his wife? Would it be still an immigration fraud?

Yes it would be immigration fraud.

This is a very straightforward case here, based on the simple facts:
1. They were living together many years as a conjugal couple (gf/bf) so were officially common-law BEFORE he himself landed as a PR.
2. In his own PR application, she was not declared as common-law partner
3. She is now banned FOREVER under the family class, even if they now got married
4. Any attempt to sponsor her and being truthful on the app, will be a guaranteed rejection

So again the only chance to sponsor her now, is to completely lie on the application about past residential address history, and commit immigration fraud. It does not matter what they do going forward, what's done is done in the past and that is all that matters.

Be like the poster earlier mentioned begin now as agreed to both parties that the relationship has progressed to the point of now "living together" begin jointing things etc. It can not be proven before that time that it was common law in my opinion.
Nothing was reported to CIC nor CRA providing the taxes were filed separately then it was just room mates.

The OP stated they have been "dating" now over 6 years. So if they do the application honestly they will need to state this, including how/when they met and the relationship developed. If they do it honestly they will also need to state their residential history over all this time. As soon as CIC sees they were living together for at least 1 year while dating, the process will end there and app will be rejected.

What you are suggesting (to pretend they weren't dating back then and lie about relationship history) is pure immigration fraud.

This has happened with the CRA before too. People have filed taxes as single to keep certain tax benefits, even though they were living together with common-law partner for many years but claiming they were just roommates. CRA has done their own investigation and found out they were in fact a couple in a relationship, so charged them back-taxes and penalties for all the years they filed taxes fraudulently.

 

[screech339]

Scenario, many apartment complexes I've lived in list the roommate on the same lease. They run background checks on all the applicants to live in the apartment or rental property, but won't provide separate leases for each individual. The reason they do this, it legally puts them in the situation to evict only one member of the unit if one defaults and leaves the others with the lower locked in rate. They're (property owner, property manager) not in the business of renting rooms, but units. So they will only list all the occupants under one lease, so if one defaults, they're all evicted and the unit can be rented at full price. Make sense?

I see your point but my illustration is to provide that you can get separate leases. An example: students going to university. If a student rents a room, they each get a separate lease assigned to the room even though they have a room mate assigned to the same room. Does this means they are common law? After living together in same room for 3 semesters straight (1 year), technically they are become common law. But because they each have separate lease agreement, they are not common law.

Screech339

 

[Christoph100]

I see your point but my illustration is to provide that you can get separate leases. An example: students going to university. If a student rents a room, they each get a separate lease assigned to the room even though they have a room mate assigned to the same room. Does this means they are common law? After living together in same room for 3 semesters straight (1 year), technically they are become common law. But because they each have separate lease agreement, they are not common law.

Screech339

Correct for students, but for example if Tom and Henry...or Tracy and Monica.... get an apartment together and are room mates but the building manager only gives one lease together. After one year they are Common Law regardless.. as per Common Law. No matter if they are really room mates.

 

[Rob_TO]

Correct for students, but for example if Tom and Henry...or Tracy and Monica.... get an apartment together and are room mates but the building manager only gives one lease together. After one year they are Common Law regardless.. as per Common Law. No matter if they are really room mates.

No, for tax and immigration purposes you need to live with someone in a conjugal/marriage-like relationship for 12 months. Not just living with a random roommate.

 

[Christoph100]

No, for tax and immigration purposes you need to live with someone in a conjugal/marriage-like relationship for 12 months. Not just living with a random roommate.

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