Thanks so much! I went through lot of other forums where it mentioned living under same roof will be considered as common law. Lot of people suggested to add him to my application and apply together during my initial application submission. However, the lack of proof of our common-law relationship before April 2023, aside from sharing the same address, prevented me from including him. would it have been better if I sponsored him after obtaining my PR status?
The way you have done it is fine. In my view having gotten married will make it easier.
Difficulties arise in two different ways when a couple has lived together under the same roof for years (eg as students) and then started a relationship later/afterwards:
-the most problematic is if one becomes a PR and then afterwards tries to sponsor the other - IRCC often will claim that the relationship was common law and the spouse should have been declared, and therefore can never be sponsored - ever. Burden of proof on PR to demonstrate it was not a common law relationship before. (Proving a negative is not easy)
-conversely, if trying to add someone common law but they don't have many proofs (because other roommates etc), ineligible as not demonstrated common law. Burden of proof on PR to show it really was common law. (At least in this case any ineligibility is not permanent.)
Yes, these are mirror image claims but with asymmetric results and consequences.
You are ok because you dn't seem to have not declared your partner as common law when required (crucially before becoming a PR), your story is straigthforward, and your marriage definitionally meets the 'is it a legally valid relationship' test (there is no subjective test as with common law).
Most important: you have added your spouse as dependent BEFORE becoming a PR. Now you should just have a relatively minor delay.
Repeat for anyone reading: it is CRITICAL to declare a common law or married spouse/partner BEFORE becoming a PR. If in ANY doubt whatsoever, you MUST check that you have not.
This board is FULL* of sad stories of couples who are subject to a permanent sponsorship ban because they 'didn't realize' it was required, often because they didn't realize that residing together 12 months means they are common law (by IRCC standards). IRCC will tend to interpret ANY 12 month period of cohabitation as common law - if you thought it 'didn't count' because it wasn't serious or not official by local laws or not permitted (eg for same sex couples) or whatever, you are wrong (ignorance is not an excuse).
Note, I think it's too harsh and the warnings not sufficiently clear (it should be in big red neon letters). But my opinion is irrelevant - as is yours.
*Okay, not 'full' but it's distressingly common.