So how do you suggest they fill in the questions that ask when they met, how they started dating, how the relationship developed, etc etc? Just lie, lie, lie everywhere?Christoph100 said:
In CIC's defense, the word "common-law" probably appears several dozen times throughout the guide and various application forms! So the thinking is that any applicants will do their necessary due diligence on the rules/laws surrounding the country they are trying to immigrate to.keesio said:
I agree, and think there is a simple solution. Instead of banning a partner or child not declared, instead they could proceed with the application but simply remove the exemption for excessive demand rule. Then if there were no health or other major issues like this in the first place, they could still be sponsored. And if they were medically inadmissible, then they would be rejected.
Yup, I understand. I was just making a comment on how I can see a person who grew up in Alberta (where common-law is 3 years cohabitation i think) would just always assume 3 years when he thinks of common-law unless he/she actually looked it up to confirm.Rob_TO said:
yes of course you can. the point is, if CIC considered your relationship commonlaw BEFORE approval and landing as a PR, THEN you would be banned. if you did not officially become commonlaw or married until AFTER approval AND landing, then you can still sponsor her in the future. I would imagine, as a part of your application you would want to show significant proof that your commonlaw status happened AFTER approval and landing, as well as showing proof that the time you did live together before you think you became commonlaw did not count toward that status and you were not in a romantic relationship yet. I also imagine if you show proof of living with a "host" family, and you were simply strangers living with the same host, then that time together won't be considered commonlaw.kabob said:
This is actually quite simple. If you decide to sponsor your current common-law partner or get married and sponsor her as wife, you will each need to list your past residential addresses. If you both show the same address for a time adding up to 1 year, BEFORE you yourself landed as a PR, then she will be declared permanently banned under family class and app will be rejected. It does not matter what official rental agreement you may or may not have or if it was with a host family. You were a couple, and living under the same roof for 1 year, so that's all that matters to CIC.kabob said:
Of course you could sponsor any new common-law partner or wife. It's only the person you didn't declare on initial application, that is banned from sponsorship under you.
Assuming the "host" family will declare in their letter that the couple were never romantically together, never shared the same room, same bed during their entire time. So the "host" family was approached by two strangers at same time and not stay in same room. I got to say, even I have a hard time believing that and I am sure CIC would too. A "host" family can say anything they want as they don't have any legal papers (rental agreements) to say they were living together.rhcohen2014 said:
But there is no legal proof we were in a relationship (no joint bank accounts or other legal documents, only pictures and stuff like that).Rob_TO said:
Because you are supposed to fill in the application honestly and truthfully, and should state your relationship started in another country and continued into Canada when you then shared the same address for 2 years.kabob said:
You don't need joint anything to be common-law. All you need to do is be sharing the same address for over a year. Just that makes it automatically legal. If she has her own bank account and the address she has for that account is the same address as yours, that is proof right there.kabob said:
If that truly is the only viable option...and if the OP honestly didn't believe that he was in a c-l relationship at the time that he received his PR...and IF CIC believes his story...you really can't blame the guy for trying.Rob_TO said:
