The CRAZY CBSA officer thinks my wife is married already!!

[canuck78]

You are basically being asked to provide a devil's proof (Prove that devil does not exists, its an evidence pattern : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probatio_diabolica ).

You are being asked to give a divorce documentation FROM ALL COUNTRIES INCLUDING SK.
But since you are saying that she never married in the first place, it means now you have to prove that she never married ANYWHERE and TO ANYONE.
Proving negatives like that is HARD.

What you need to do is to find a proof that she never married in SK and that her legal marriages in SK does not exist. That should be a starting point. Beyond that, only a good lawyer can provide help.

Interestingly, IRCC has not opened their own cards, so you don't know what they have on her. Proving what they have on her incorrect may be easier. But, I doubt IRCC will provide that evidence for examination unless challenged in a court of law. I may be wrong, others like @k.h.p. and @scylla may know more.

If you are denied your application, assuming yours is a genuine case, I think it will be denying fairness by the burden of legal cost.

Not everywhere. If they can prove they weren't married in the places where they have lived that is fine. It's not all about proving that you've hadn't had a wedding it's more about not having declared being married versus single in any document for the period they were together.

 

[GandiBaat]

It strikes me as most likely that the ex said he was married for the purposes of a visiting visa or similar to Canada and that's in IRCC records. You'll need to sort out how you prove that the ex was lying. Good that you have a lawyer, since they're paid more than free volunteers on an internet forum to do this research for you

The guy is a SK national. They don't need visa. Though I don't know if they didn't need it back in 2014 or not.
Meaning, his wife should not need to provide an invitation letter to her then bf.

 

[GandiBaat]

Not everywhere. If they can prove they weren't married in the places where they have lived that is fine. It's not all about proving that you've hadn't had a wedding it's more about not having declared being married versus single in any document for the period they were together.

The trouble is, many jurisdictions like Canada herself recognizes a religious marriage. She was in Canada with that ex. I don't know how she will prove that she has not married him anywhere in Canada even via a religious means. AFAIK, You don't need to register a marriage in court. A priest can marry two people and that is legally a proper marriage.

Thankfully AFAIK, Canada does not recognizes marriages in absentia. Otherwise, it would have been a bigger nightmare.

I think easiest will be to know what kind of evidence IRCC has which tells them that she is married. It may just be easier to disprove that evidence.

 

[Canada2020eh]

Is there anyway to find out what IRCC is basing their requests on, meaning the info they have that brought this whole thing into question?

 

[takitfree]

In order for something to be procedurally fair an applicant must be made aware of what the bar is that they have to meet. IRCC should be more forthcoming about what the concerns are they expect you to address. On it’s own this letter doesn’t make any sense. Did your wife declare that she was married before? If not , and they have proof otherwise, why are they not hitting you with a PFL for misrepresentation?

 

[k.h.p.]

Is there anyway to find out what IRCC is basing their requests on, meaning the info they have that brought this whole thing into question?

No, not really.

 

[helpwhattheheck]

None of us were married
Her ex bf was SK national
No
Never lived in other countries

Its just bizarre, we did get a lawyer and even the lawyer is having a hard time gathering evidence because theres no such thing. Can't really prove someone is "divorced" when they were never married. How can someone prove a marriage did not take place...if it did not take place. Unless we have a potential suspect name and then try to prove that person specifically never married my wife, we are basically looking for a needle in a haystack. For Foreigners to Korea they would register their marriages with their home countries and the Korean officials would accept it. The Korean officials have told my wife and my lawyer 4 times now that "We do not deal with this, to prove you are married please contact your local government because they have records on your marriages"

Assume the evidence relates to her ex bf. Get information about him showing he has never been married. It would obviously be easier with his participation. Things like previous tax records, ID filings, etc. Collect the same info from her. This isn't rocket science so a lawyer should be able to figure this out.

Impossible because of privacy laws. They broke up in 2016. Obviously she will never contact him he was not a good person to start with. The only reason she remembered his name is because she asked a bunch of her friends if they could remember what his name was. No way to contact him she does not have his email or phone number or even remember where his parents live. There was no tax documents filed, at least not that she was aware of, if there was it was all in his language and his country.

 

[helpwhattheheck]

In order for something to be procedurally fair an applicant must be made aware of what the bar is that they have to meet. IRCC should be more forthcoming about what the concerns are they expect you to address. On it’s own this letter doesn’t make any sense. Did your wife declare that she was married before? If not , and they have proof otherwise, why are they not hitting you with a PFL for misrepresentation?

Lawyer has wondered the same thing and stressed that such an accusation is vague, how does one prove they were never married in any country in this world including SK, theres not much to work with there. Only time will tell when we get the immigration notes we ordered from the file...

 

[armoured]

The trouble is, many jurisdictions like Canada herself recognizes a religious marriage. She was in Canada with that ex. I don't know how she will prove that she has not married him anywhere in Canada even via a religious means. AFAIK, You don't need to register a marriage in court. A priest can marry two people and that is legally a proper marriage.

This is not correct about religious marriages in Canada for every province I'm aware of - even though a common misconception. Religious ceremonies without civil registration are not legal marriages in Canada* - although often the religious officiant is 'deputised' by the government to carry out the civil marriage. (So technically it's the reverse - only civil marriages, duly registered, are recognised; they just often are held jointly with religious marriages and with the same officiant; but for the law, only that civil part matters)

Note, it's a provincial responsibility so there is some variance (and one reason why even proving you're not married in Canada is not an easy task).

*Have to put a qualifier, there may well be some exception in some province I'm not aware of, seem to recall reading of the banns was still on the books somewhere not that long ago. And I wouldn't begin to know if native groups have some sovereignty/jurisdiction in some instances.

Canada will usually recognise marriages from other countries/jurisdictions as long as they are legal there - with some restrictions (marriage by proxy, bigamy/polygamy). So if other countries recognise religious marriages, they can be in Canada as well.

 

[GandiBaat]

This is not correct about religious marriages in Canada for every province I'm aware of - even though a common misconception. Religious ceremonies without civil registration are not legal marriages in Canada* - although often the religious officiant is 'deputised' by the government to carry out the civil marriage. (So technically it's the reverse - only civil marriages, duly registered, are recognised; they just often are held jointly with religious marriages and with the same officiant; but for the law, only that civil part matters)

Note, it's a provincial responsibility so there is some variance (and one reason why even proving you're not married in Canada is not an easy task).

*Have to put a qualifier, there may well be some exception in some province I'm not aware of, seem to recall reading of the banns was still on the books somewhere not that long ago. And I wouldn't begin to know if native groups have some sovereignty/jurisdiction in some instances.

Canada will usually recognise marriages from other countries/jurisdictions as long as they are legal there - with some restrictions (marriage by proxy, bigamy/polygamy). So if other countries recognise religious marriages, they can be in Canada as well.

As far as I know in BC, the legal requirement for religious marriage is :

1. Possession of a marriage license.
2. Solemnization of marriage by a registered with vital statistics religious representative.
3. Witness of the the marriage by 2 people and done in a public manner.

If you do all of these, legally the marriage is valid. The representative provides a statement which is a legal proof of marriage. You should also register the marriage with vital statistics to get a marriage certificate but that said, a marriage solemnized by the registered priest is still a legally valid marriage.

I know this because a certain person I know was seeking divorce and their marriage was not registered which caused a lot of delay in getting divorce process completed but their marriage was still valid.

 

[armoured]

As far as I know in BC, the legal requirement for religious marriage is :

1. Possession of a marriage license.
2. Solemnization of marriage by a registered with vital statistics religious representative.
3. Witness of the the marriage by 2 people and done in a public manner.

If you do all of these, legally the marriage is valid. The representative provides a statement which is a legal proof of marriage.

The 'registered with vital statistics religious representative' is what I was referring to informally as 'deputised' by the government. (Precise names of departments etc varies somewhat by province, but basically the civil register).

As you note, without this civil part, it is not a legal marriage. In fact, again as far as I'm aware, if the solemnization/witnessing is done without the religious ceremony, it is a valid marriage. (Religious institutions may have their own rules as to what is required on top of this, of course - i.e. require the ceremony and only do the civl part afterwards)

Hence my point: it may look like a religious marriage to participants, but it is the civil marriage part that counts legally. (This is different from e.g. much of Europe in that the civil ceremony is separate at city hall or equivalent and religious ceremonies are completely separate)

We can call this whatever we want, eg government 'facilitates' religious weddings, but it's still the civil part that is legally required to be a valid marriage. Therefore I still say Canada doesn't recognise (domestically) religious marriages; they let people do them, but it has no legal meaning.

 

[armoured]

Note, it's a provincial responsibility so there is some variance (and one reason why even proving you're not married in Canada is not an easy task).

*Have to put a qualifier, there may well be some exception in some province I'm not aware of, seem to recall reading of the banns was still on the books somewhere not that long ago. And I wouldn't begin to know if native groups have some sovereignty/jurisdiction in some instances.

Warning, somewhat off-topic.

Because I'm a bit geeky and noodle on the internet when having coffee, some examples of Just How Weird Canada Can Be:

1) In Ontario at least and I believe some other provinces, Reading of the Banns at church is not a substitute for a wedding solemnization, but can substitute for getting a marriage license prior to the solemnization:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m03

2) BC does have a system for First Nations Designate (as opposed to a Religious Representative) to solemnize and registermarriages. As far as I can tell, this is otherwise exactly the same as for religious representatives (and so my shorthand 'deputise' basically applies).

3) BC has some very specific language applying only to Doukhobors (a sect originally from Russia that refused to cooperate with government for some time). To summarize, it seems that the government recognized (registered) some Doukhobor marriages after the fact, and now has a system that they notify the government after the fact to get the marriages recognised - I suspect because Doukhobors either reject the idea of church hierarchy or nomination of representative with government, but don't know. This was clearly a compromise when the act was last modified, but you'd need someone with better history to get the full story.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96282_01#section12

Again as far as I'm aware, those are the only 'purely' religious marriages that would be recognised in Canada now, and even then, it's the civil registry that counts legally (i.e. it's no longer purely religious).

Sorry for this sidebar, just an interesting topic to me.

 

[nayr69sg]

Warning, somewhat off-topic.

Because I'm a bit geeky and noodle on the internet when having coffee, some examples of Just How Weird Canada Can Be:

1) In Ontario at least and I believe some other provinces, Reading of the Banns at church is not a substitute for a wedding solemnization, but can substitute for getting a marriage license prior to the solemnization:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m03

2) BC does have a system for First Nations Designate (as opposed to a Religious Representative) to solemnize and registermarriages. As far as I can tell, this is otherwise exactly the same as for religious representatives (and so my shorthand 'deputise' basically applies).

3) BC has some very specific language applying only to Doukhobors (a sect originally from Russia that refused to cooperate with government for some time). To summarize, it seems that the government recognized (registered) some Doukhobor marriages after the fact, and now has a system that they notify the government after the fact to get the marriages recognised - I suspect because Doukhobors either reject the idea of church hierarchy or nomination of representative with government, but don't know. This was clearly a compromise when the act was last modified, but you'd need someone with better history to get the full story.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96282_01#section12

Again as far as I'm aware, those are the only 'purely' religious marriages that would be recognised in Canada now, and even then, it's the civil registry that counts legally (i.e. it's no longer purely religious).

Sorry for this sidebar, just an interesting topic to me.

What about people in common law partnerships?

Sounds like IRCC may be looking at it from that point of view?

A common-law relationship is legally a de facto relationship, meaning that it must be established in each individual case, based on the facts. This is in contrast to a marriage, which is legally a de jure relationship, meaning that it has been established in law.

The OP seems to be saying is isnt de jure.
So could IRCC be saying it is de facto?

 

[armoured]

What about people in common law partnerships?

Sounds like IRCC may be looking at it from that point of view?

A common-law relationship is legally a de facto relationship, meaning that it must be established in each individual case, based on the facts. This is in contrast to a marriage, which is legally a de jure relationship, meaning that it has been established in law.

The OP seems to be saying is isnt de jure.
So could IRCC be saying it is de facto?

My post was off topic really but I see your point.

However: the letter referred to a marriage and needing divorce papers. There is no such documentation of divorce for de facto relationships (at least in Canada). I believe ircc would not have referred to a marriage or required divorce papers if the question was whether a de facto relationship had ended. (unless conceivably that is required in South Korea but I think they would have specified the nature of the papers)

But if there is such a procedure in South Korea, it's possible I guess

 

[k.h.p.]

Warning, somewhat off-topic.

Because I'm a bit geeky and noodle on the internet when having coffee, some examples of Just How Weird Canada Can Be:

1) In Ontario at least and I believe some other provinces, Reading of the Banns at church is not a substitute for a wedding solemnization, but can substitute for getting a marriage license prior to the solemnization:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m03

2) BC does have a system for First Nations Designate (as opposed to a Religious Representative) to solemnize and registermarriages. As far as I can tell, this is otherwise exactly the same as for religious representatives (and so my shorthand 'deputise' basically applies).

3) BC has some very specific language applying only to Doukhobors (a sect originally from Russia that refused to cooperate with government for some time). To summarize, it seems that the government recognized (registered) some Doukhobor marriages after the fact, and now has a system that they notify the government after the fact to get the marriages recognised - I suspect because Doukhobors either reject the idea of church hierarchy or nomination of representative with government, but don't know. This was clearly a compromise when the act was last modified, but you'd need someone with better history to get the full story.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96282_01#section12

Again as far as I'm aware, those are the only 'purely' religious marriages that would be recognised in Canada now, and even then, it's the civil registry that counts legally (i.e. it's no longer purely religious).

Sorry for this sidebar, just an interesting topic to me.

Your hypothesizing, while fun to read, doesn't change the fact that if a marriage is validly entered into in another country - whether it be a civil marriage or a religious marriage or just, I don't know, chanting "It's a small world after all" sixteen times - if it meets the laws of the other country and is done physically in person with the presence of both parties to the marriage - Canada will recognize it.

A marriage validly entered into in Djibouti doesn't need to meet BC's legal standards of marriage. Canada accepts it on the face of it unless it (a) was a proxy marriage or (b) was not entered into in a way that is in accordance with the laws in the foreign jurisdiction.

As such, Canada will recognize plenty of religious marriages where they are not legally required to be done in a civil manner. Proving that a marriage meets legal requirements is another question, particularly if the religious ceremony doesn't produce a certificate or other document.