Visa ends in June, can apply for common law in July...

[jvid23]

Apply for a visitor extension in May. Pay the PR fees and explain in the extension app that you will be applying for common-law sponsorship in July. With proof of your savings, you should have no issues.

You can then apply for PR and the OWP in July while on Implied Status. His income, your income and the savings will be sufficient financial proof for the PR app that you can support yourselves.

Thank you!!

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Im getting really confused about the replies and suggestions here haha. I really just want to do the easiest thing cause this is already sp much paperwork and I dont really care about the cheapest option.
Can I apply for a common law visa while waiting for my reply about a visitor visa extension?
IF NOT whats my options?

Yes, as I already stated, you can apply for PR while on Implied Status.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I highlighted the key part there. I did already read this. It does not say they are illegal or subject to removal. It states they are out of status.

Out of status = illegally in Canada.

 

[profiler]

Out of status = illegally in Canada.

Oh? I am surprised then to find this:

"
Restoration of Temporary Resident Status

Restoration

182 (1) On application made by a visitor, worker or student within 90 days after losing temporary resident status as a result of failing to comply with a condition imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c), an officer shall restore that status if, following an examination, it is established that the visitor, worker or student meets the initial requirements for their stay, has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.

Exception

(2) Despite subsection (1), an officer shall not restore the status of a student who is not in compliance with a condition set out in subsection 220.1(1).
"

That'd kind of imply that Temporary Residents are not "illegal" at all, since I cannot find the word illegal at all in the regulations (I tried their search for it) -- and the implication that you can restore said status within 90 days means there would have to be an implied buffer there.

 

[profiler]

For completeness, here is section 185 (it was referenced in the blurb above):
"
Specific conditions

185 An officer may impose, vary or cancel the following specific conditions on a temporary resident:

(a) the period authorized for their stay;

(b) the work that they are permitted to engage in, or are prohibited from engaging in, in Canada, including

(i) the type of work,

(ii) the employer,

(iii) the location of the work,

(iv) the times and periods of the work, and

(v) in the case of a member of a crew, the period within which they must join the means of transportation;

(c) the studies that they are permitted to engage in, or are prohibited from engaging in, in Canada, including

(i) the type of studies or course,

(ii) the educational institution,

(iii) the location of the studies, and

(iv) the times and periods of the studies;

(d) the area within which they are permitted to travel or are prohibited from travelling in Canada; and

(e) the times and places at which they must report for

(i) medical examination, surveillance or treatment, or

(ii) the presentation of evidence of compliance with applicable conditions.
"

And here is the (strikingly similar to ROS, sans the contravention of 185(a)) Extend your stay:
"
Applications for Extension of Authorization to Remain in Canada as a Temporary Resident

Circumstances

181 (1) A foreign national may apply for an extension of their authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident if

(a) the application is made by the end of the period authorized for their stay; and

(b) they have complied with all conditions imposed on their entry into Canada.

Extension

(2) An officer shall extend the foreign national's authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national continues to meet the requirements of section 179.
"

So, I still don't see anything about the person being considered "illegal" -- considering there is a remedy for contravention of 185(a), and the application to extend (s.181) is nearly mirrored to the ROS. Sorry, I don't believe that the person would be "illegal" within the 90 day period directly following their validity period.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

So, I still don't see anything about the person being considered "illegal" -- considering there is a remedy for contravention of 185(a), and the application to extend (s.181) is nearly mirrored to the ROS. Sorry, I don't believe that the person would be "illegal" within the 90 day period directly following their validity period.

A foreign national is required by law to have status in Canada. A person without status is breaking the law. Break the law = illegal.

Canada is lenient in allowing people 90 days to once again legalize their status. However, during that time, they are still here in contravention of the law. If Restoration is approved, their stay is retroactively legalized to the date of their status expiring. If Restoration is refused, they are considered to have been in Canada illegally since their status expired and must leave the country.

 

[profiler]

A foreign national is required by law to have status in Canada. A person without status is breaking the law. Break the law = illegal.

Canada is lenient in allowing people 90 days to once again legalize their status. However, during that time, they are still here in contravention of the law. If Restoration is approved, their stay is retroactively legalized to the date of their status expiring. If Restoration is refused, they are considered to have been in Canada illegally since their status expired and must leave the country.

Can you point to where it states that? Again, I am trying to educate myself here. Because, the Canada I grew up in does permit contraventions of law in the presence of a remedy for the prescribed period of said remedy. Many laws are like this, not just IRPA. Providing you only contravened 185(a), you are still not "illegal" until the 90 day window afforded to you in s.182(1) has expired. It's not guilty until proven innocent, my friend. There is a process, and a prescribed remedy.

There is a reason they require your passport to be valid for 6 months past the end of your stay. Likewise for extending your stay as a worker or visitor. That buffer also enables the process of s.182(1) to complete.

So -- again -- I disagree here. A person is not "illegal" until the expiration of the prescribed 90 days from s.182(1), providing they only contravened s.185(a). The preponderance of evidence to the contrary is hard to ignore.