Question regarding common law status for spousal sponsorship

[YVR-MNL]

Hello all,

My partner (from Philippines) and I (Canadian citizen) have been together since September 2017, and had a son (dual citizen) June 2018. Between May 2018 and July 2020 I spent about 40% of the time in Philippines as my partner could not obtain a visa to come to Canada, denied 4x for TRV.

July 2020 I returned to Canada and have been here since. This was a pretty crazy time at the height of covid and it took us until December 2020 until my partner and our son were able to get to Canada, my partner granted a TRV under the family unification program. We have been living together since then except for the period of June 2022-September 2022 when she returned to Philippines with our son to visit her family.

So the time line is:

September 2017: Relationship started
June 2018: Son born
June 2018-December 2022: Living together in Philippines about 40% of the time
December 2020: Her arrival in Canada
Dec 2020-June 2022: Living together (approx 18 months)
June 2022-September 2022, partner returned to Philippines (approx 3 months)
September 2022-March 2023 living together in Canada (approx 5-6 months)

My question is will the 3 months she spent in Phillipines effect our common law status? I've been seeing some unclear wording regarding "continual cohabitation".

Both of our names are on our lease since November 2021, the year before that we lived in a condo I owned and her name was not on the documents.

Anyone have any insight into whether we will be considered common law?

Thanks in advance.

 

[YVR-MNL]

Can anyone offer any insight to this?

 

[armoured]

September 2017: Relationship started
June 2018: Son born
June 2018-December 2022: Living together in Philippines about 40% of the time - NOTE I ASSUME THE 2022 HERE IS A TYPO
December 2020: Her arrival in Canada
Dec 2020-June 2022: Living together (approx 18 months)
June 2022-September 2022, partner returned to Philippines (approx 3 months)
September 2022-March 2023 living together in Canada (approx 5-6 months)

My question is will the 3 months she spent in Phillipines effect our common law status? I've been seeing some unclear wording regarding "continual cohabitation".

Both of our names are on our lease since November 2021, the year before that we lived in a condo I owned and her name was not on the documents.

The test is that you must have lived together, continuously, for at least 12 months. It does not have to be the most recent 12 months.

So you should be good with the caveat that you will need to document that period together between dec 2020 and june 2022. Check carefully what you can show for that.

BUT: even if that documentation is not ideal, I'd venture that your long relationship, joint child, and record of residing together on basically all the other times between june 2018 to present (except when you physically weren't in the same country) would paint a pretty strong picture.

Meaning, that I'd expect they will be a bit less demanding about eg leases and the like (compared to a couple that had only been together 12 months and lacked lease etc).

Some things to emphasize: she and your son have no other accommodation in Canada, i.e. whenever they have been in Canada, they have only resided with you. (And presumably that was the same to Dec 2020 in reverse, whenever you were in PH you resided together? Possible I misunderstood).

That said: you MUST document everything you can for her during the period that is your basis for common law. Bills, correspondence, anything in her name or your son's (becuase obviously mother resided with infant son!), etc. Show everything you can. If you can get a letter from neighbour or whomever that she and your son resided with you, and from eg relatives or friends, all the better. Given the context I expect it won't be an issue.

Of course, if you got married, there woudl be even less risk of an issue.

 

[YVR-MNL]

Thanks for the reply. We do have lease docs from November 2021-present with both of us on the lease(s).

Yes, when I was in Manila we were living together, both of us on the lease(s) there as well. We haven't shared any bills other than a credit card but I suppose we could/should open a joint bank account as well. We do have a ton of documentation from our previous visa applications as well so I think we should be good on that front.

Thanks again.

 

[canuck78]

You need to apply for sponsorship asap. Your partner was lucky to be allowed to return to Canada for another visit after visiting for a long period the first time. The only reason she was able to get a TRV was Covid otherwise she would have continued to get denied. At a certain point Canada is not going to grant her any further extensions as a visitor. Assume your child has already received recognition of their Canaduan citizenship. When Canada allows non-citizens to join partners as visitors and they want to remain permanently they expect you to apply for sponsorship soon after you qualify.

 

[armoured]

Thanks for the reply. We do have lease docs from November 2021-present with both of us on the lease(s).

Yes, when I was in Manila we were living together, both of us on the lease(s) there as well. We haven't shared any bills other than a credit card but I suppose we could/should open a joint bank account as well. We do have a ton of documentation from our previous visa applications as well so I think we should be good on that front.

It's good you have some lease documentation. But I repeat what is critical: you MUST show you lived together for 18 months, continuously - and that means the period Dec 2020-June 2022 (or some subset of it equal to 12 months). Showing you have a lease from Nov 21-June22 - not 12 months. Nov21 to present - not continuous.

Repeat: document the Dec20-Jun22 period. Given your long relationship, they may be a bit more relaxed about the form of this proof (forgive the lack of a lease if you hve other docs), and the evidence of your cohabitation for the rest of the period is very good relationship proof - but you still need to show that 12 month continuous period. (I feel pretty confident they would treat documentation of your son's residence with you as evidence your spouse was with you too, and you'll have had to done some stuff for him like doctor's bills etc).

I also concur by the way that you should apply as soon as possible, and definitely before your spouse departs Canada again.

 

[MJSPARV]

@YVR-MNL if you're worried about proving common law and there's not some sort of impediment you haven't mentioned (or you did and I missed it in your posts) getting married would solve some of your documentation problems.

@Kaibigan out of curiosity/for my edification, why is having your wife's TRV refused twice a cause for concern that her PR will be refused? TRV and spousal PR have essentially contradictory justifications. I'd assume that the primary factor that makes a TRV hard to get is her relationship with you and that's precisely what makes her eligible for PR... I hope your wife's application goes smoothly!

 

[armoured]

My thinking goes like this. Each time my wife has been denied a TRV, and with a supporting letter from me, the IRCC decision letter (if you can call it that), stripped to its essentials, boils down to the IRCC saying as follows:

You say that, if we grant you a TRV, you will return home at the end of the time period allowed for a visit. That's what you say, but we know better. We know you are lying and we are very sure you will not go home. You plan to overstay and to remain in Canada illegally. Therefore, your application is denied.

So, without putting too fine a gloss on it, the decision is tantamount to saying that my wife and I have been caught in a misrepresentation. Her claim to an intent to adhere to the terms of any visa is a falsehood. It's a grave finding against credibility. So now, apply that bit of background and reasoning to our sponsorship/PR application. Seen in that light, why would they approve someone already found guilty of mendacity and misrepresentation?

I think if you were to take the other side of this argument, with your training and intelligence, you would rip the above apart on the basis that it's the elaborate over-thinking of an individual whose pride has been wounded (no offense intended).

You're not being accused of lying. You're not being accused of anything. They've denied your partner on the basis that you (and her) may be mistaken, not lying. And that the potential risks/costs are such - according to policy - that they should not take the risk on the other side; that judgment could be wrong on a number of levels, including the weights (implicit) of risks and costs, which are hardly perfect.

A store owner locking their door each night and turning on the alarm system is not accusing every passerby of being a thief. They're taking precautions. (Hint, there are other people who may be thieves).

Or or or. You can use whatever analogy you prefer. But take the other side - just as an exercise - and stop overthinking from your own perspective. I bet you do this all the time in your professional capacity - weigh the other side's position (and consider how plausible/reasonable).

For whatever reason, the case you presented for the TRV was not sufficiently persuasive - not necessarily at any fault of your own. I could ask more about profile and background of your partner and other aspects - but I don't want to insert myself there, and you also know that yes, country of origin and some other aspects (out of your control) can also be a factor. That's not an accusation of anything - it's a judgment that they also know could be wrong, and when considering the sponsorship app, the factors involved (and hence judgment) may well be quite different.

Which I'm sure it is and that your app will be approved relatively quickly.

 

[MJSPARV]

My thinking goes like this. Each time my wife has been denied a TRV, and with a supporting letter from me, the IRCC decision letter (if you can call it that), stripped to its essentials, boils down to the IRCC saying as follows:

You say that, if we grant you a TRV, you will return home at the end of the time period allowed for a visit. That's what you say, but we know better. We know you are lying and we are very sure you will not go home. You plan to overstay and to remain in Canada illegally. Therefore, your application is denied.

So, without putting too fine a gloss on it, the decision is tantamount to saying that my wife and I have been caught in a misrepresentation. Her claim to an intent to adhere to the terms of any visa is a falsehood. It's a grave finding against credibility. So now, apply that bit of background and reasoning to our sponsorship/PR application. Seen in that light, why would they approve someone already found guilty of mendacity and misrepresentation? We should have already earned a 5-year ban, which seems to be the standard penalty for these things. And, whether expressed in terms of a ban or otherwise, why would they endorse the PR application of a known liar? Is that the kind of person Canada wants to allow to live here? Canada may need those with certain skills, but I have not heard of liars being in short supply. To my mind, it's a bit two-faced, inconsistent and bordering on the irrational to call someone out for lying on a TRV application, then turning around and welcoming them to Canada on a PR application.

Hmmmm. I guess I disagree that having been denied a TRV is a liability. Attempting to be together in Canada seems to be an asset in the vast majority of cases on here (with exceptions made for people who have lied on the TRV and are exposing themselves to trouble with discrepancies between the two applications). I'm certain that applying for a TRV is recommended to a lot of people on this forum as a suggestion for strengthening their application to show desire for and effort towards being together. After reading your explanation I still stand by what I said earlier that the propose/criteria for a TRV and for spousal PR are different enough that being rejected for a TRV or three is not something to worry about. In fact, you could take the rejections as IRCC acknowledging the strength of your relationship.

 

[canuck78]

The majority of spouses applying to visit spouses in Canada don’t actually return home which is why most spouses are denied TRVs. They aren’t generally true visitors. Simple as that. It is also very difficult and expensive to deport people so Canada prefers to be cautious when it comes to granting TRVs versus other countries. You seem to have a very strong case for sponsorship. Plenty of time together, multiple visits, attempt to visit you in Canada, getting married after multiple in person visits.

 

[Xilikon]

My thinking goes like this. Each time my wife has been denied a TRV, and with a supporting letter from me, the IRCC decision letter (if you can call it that), stripped to its essentials, boils down to the IRCC saying as follows:

You say that, if we grant you a TRV, you will return home at the end of the time period allowed for a visit. That's what you say, but we know better. We know you are lying and we are very sure you will not go home. You plan to overstay and to remain in Canada illegally. Therefore, your application is denied.

So, without putting too fine a gloss on it, the decision is tantamount to saying that my wife and I have been caught in a misrepresentation. Her claim to an intent to adhere to the terms of any visa is a falsehood. It's a grave finding against credibility. So now, apply that bit of background and reasoning to our sponsorship/PR application. Seen in that light, why would they approve someone already found guilty of mendacity and misrepresentation? We should have already earned a 5-year ban, which seems to be the standard penalty for these things. And, whether expressed in terms of a ban or otherwise, why would they endorse the PR application of a known liar? Is that the kind of person Canada wants to allow to live here? Canada may need those with certain skills, but I have not heard of liars being in short supply. To my mind, it's a bit two-faced, inconsistent and bordering on the irrational to call someone out for lying on a TRV application, then turning around and welcoming them to Canada on a PR application.

What others said is true and I guess you are overthinking a bit too much about the TRV refusal vs PR analysis. Try to trust the process and be patient even if I understand your worries. In my humble opinion, your own PR case is really strong and I read others with weaker evidence being accepted as PR.

 

[scylla]

Hmmmm. I guess I disagree that having been denied a TRV is a liability. Attempting to be together in Canada seems to be an asset in the vast majority of cases on here (with exceptions made for people who have lied on the TRV and are exposing themselves to trouble with discrepancies between the two applications). I'm certain that applying for a TRV is recommended to a lot of people on this forum as a suggestion for strengthening their application to show desire for and effort towards being together. After reading your explanation I still stand by what I said earlier that the propose/criteria for a TRV and for spousal PR are different enough that being rejected for a TRV or three is not something to worry about. In fact, you could take the rejections as IRCC acknowledging the strength of your relationship.

Multiple (3 or more) can in fact sometimes end up being a liability for the PR application. We've seen a handful of GCMS notes here in the past that have mentioned this. Of course it depends on the applicant's overall profile and the timing of the TRV refusals can also have an impact. The rationale for why this can sometimes be a liability is that it can make it look like the applicant really wants to get to Canada through any means possible. Multiple TRV refusals can sometimes increase IRCC's concerns that the applicant has entered into a marriage of convenience in order to get to Canada.