IMM1344 and IMM5533 both ask whether the sponsor has previously been in a common-law relationship.
Here is an interesting case study...
For some reason the sponsor did not disclose his previous relationship while applying spousal sponsorship for his newly married spouse.
Q1: Is it considered a misrepresentation?
It may depend on if the previous common-law relationship is a material factor. If it is not, why the question is listed on both forms? If the only thing matters is to prove the previous relationship has been dissolved? Or to withhold this information could induce an error in the administration of Canadian immigration law?
(In this case, the two relationships were overlapped and there are some red flags in the new relationship. For hiding the previous relationship, the sponsor omitted a residential address on the forms, which had became another misrepresentation if the address was considered a material factor.)
Q2: If it is considered a misrepresentation, what actions will IRCC take?
Possibility 1: Inadmissible for misrepresentation:
There is a case on Canli says the sponsor withheld the fact that he married a second wife in Canada, which was a bigamy. After 3 months he broke up with the second wife, he submitted the spousal sponsor application for his first wife, who lived in India. His immigration consultant told him not to disclose the second marriage because it was invalid. The sponsor ended up being inadmissible for misrepresentation and had his own PR revoked by IRCC
In the original case, the sponsor is a Canadian citizen, who was born in Canada. He will not be influenced by the inadmissibility, but according to IRPA 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
which means the sponsored person may be inadmissible for misrepresentation.
Possibility 2: The application is refused but able to be re-submitted afterwards
The sponsor may only fail his eligibility for being a sponsor and choose to withdrew his application and re-summit a new application afterwards. But if the previous record will influence his credibility of the new application is another question.
These are just my inferences. You are more than welcome to share your expertise or experience.
Here is an interesting case study...
For some reason the sponsor did not disclose his previous relationship while applying spousal sponsorship for his newly married spouse.
Q1: Is it considered a misrepresentation?
It may depend on if the previous common-law relationship is a material factor. If it is not, why the question is listed on both forms? If the only thing matters is to prove the previous relationship has been dissolved? Or to withhold this information could induce an error in the administration of Canadian immigration law?
(In this case, the two relationships were overlapped and there are some red flags in the new relationship. For hiding the previous relationship, the sponsor omitted a residential address on the forms, which had became another misrepresentation if the address was considered a material factor.)
Q2: If it is considered a misrepresentation, what actions will IRCC take?
Possibility 1: Inadmissible for misrepresentation:
There is a case on Canli says the sponsor withheld the fact that he married a second wife in Canada, which was a bigamy. After 3 months he broke up with the second wife, he submitted the spousal sponsor application for his first wife, who lived in India. His immigration consultant told him not to disclose the second marriage because it was invalid. The sponsor ended up being inadmissible for misrepresentation and had his own PR revoked by IRCC
In the original case, the sponsor is a Canadian citizen, who was born in Canada. He will not be influenced by the inadmissibility, but according to IRPA 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
which means the sponsored person may be inadmissible for misrepresentation.
Possibility 2: The application is refused but able to be re-submitted afterwards
The sponsor may only fail his eligibility for being a sponsor and choose to withdrew his application and re-summit a new application afterwards. But if the previous record will influence his credibility of the new application is another question.
These are just my inferences. You are more than welcome to share your expertise or experience.