What are the set livingrequirements for my common-law based permanent residence?

[Kev1n]

The common law class, in most cases, is for people who are not serious or "not ready" to get married. Yes it is true that even married couples split up, but at least they have made a committment to each other. Common-law applicants have not made any committment whatsoever, so its bizarre we allow them to sponsor their partner.

People can get married a few days after meeting, to apply for common law they have to live together for a year, living together for a year is quite a commitment.

I see your point but I think your wrong.

 

[swedenTOcanada]

:-* +1

+2 :-*

I completely agree, I am sorry again that this turned out to look like im asking for illegal help, I just feel confused in this whole mess but I know that I will do the right thing and hope for the best. For the record, our common-law relationship was as real as anything else. We had been together for 4 years, moved around the world together, have co-signed leases, bank accounts, cats and dreams of being together forever so the fact that this breaks down has nothing to do with being common-law of married, it is simply a reality that sometimes things just break down.


It just have a feeeling that this may be the end of my ambition of spending most of my life in Canada since I would have to find a whole new way of being able to come and stay permanently again. That said, its never to late to try again but as I am sure you all know, this process is time consuming, frustrating, exhausting, hard and life changing.

 

[steerpike]

What I said was that to me, marriage is a piece of paper. Those other connections mean more to me than marriage. For you, they are simply financial arrangements; for me, they are the combining of our lives.

Obviously marriage is more than a "piece of paper", and yet you and others continue to throw that phrase around. It's insulting, especially from people who's only concern is money.

We have no contract for our pet, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean there.

Oh? Maybe it was someone else who mentioned they have shared ownership of their pet? Whoever it was, i find that really amusing. That the pet warrants a contract but not the spouse.

Again, it's only your personal belief that "it's sad to see" what traditions are evolving into. Many of us have no issues with this evolution and actually welcome the changes that fit better with our chosen life.

I was specifically referring to the fact that society is becoming focused on the material. And with marriage being disparaged as "just a piece of paper" (which is a very common phrase that is thrown around all the time, not just by you.)

It's not that we refuse to have a contract outlining our relationship. You need to understand that WE DON'T SEE THE NEED TO HAVE CONTRACT DEFINE OUR RELATIONSHIP.

Right. You only need them for financial matters because money is the only real concern in life.

The definition of common-law was not created because unmarried couples were splitting up. It was created because they were staying together and

That's a very clever way to rephrase things. You should work in politics.

wanted the same rights as married people: to share benefits such as medical/dental, life insurance, to have legal rights to their common property if one partner happened to die, to file taxes together,

Those are good points, but they seem like largely financial concerns.

to deal with the legal responsibilities for their children together etc.

Irrelevant because people can have children together and not be common-law. The courts still divide up responsibilities for the children.

CIC hasn't in any way "moved the meaning...beyond the purpose intended by the courts." The courts recognize a common-law relationship as essentially equal to a married relationship, as does CIC.

I disagree, i think the courts have only recognised that it is a similar relationship from a financial management perspective. Although CIC does require you be exclusive sexually with your common-law partner, i don't think that's part of the general definition.

Really, this is simply a matter of our differing beliefs and views on the world. Luckily, we live in a free country where we are all entitled to our own beliefs and no one person is right or wrong. I respect your belief that marriage is important and fully support you in your choice to be married.

And I am also free to express my opinion on the subject. I don't really see why you are taking it all so personally. And I think you also need to realize that society creates beliefs in people as well. Children growing up in a society where they hear that marriage is meaningless and just a piece of paper (which it certainly is not, marriage has existed before there even was paper), but "make sure you have shared ownership of your pets!" are going to internalize that kind of thinking.

However, I expect that you will fully support my choice of a common-law relationship, even if you don't agree with it.

I don't agree it should be allowed as a qualification for sponsorship. That's not an attack on you or your freedoms. We have just have different perspectives.

A couple that gets married very quickly will raise "red flags" with CIC, but a couple that can't even be bothered to get married, in the case of common-law, doesn't. The law as it is, while its good for you, because it protects and enshrines your "way of life" , with the other hand it is denouncing the traditional way of life. Common advice on this forum is to "live together for a year" before applying, even for couples that are planning to get married! If you don't you may get "red flagged".

If you think all these rights and privileges were granted to you and no harm was done to people with traditional values, you are wrong. Society is changing, and when society changes it forces everyone to change with it. It doesn't feel like freedom to me when i am pressured to change.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Obviously marriage is more than a "piece of paper", and yet you and others continue to throw that phrase around. It's insulting, especially from people who's only concern is money.

If you think all these rights and privileges were granted to you and no harm was done to people with traditional values, you are wrong. Society is changing, and when society changes it forces everyone to change with it. It doesn't feel like freedom to me when i am pressured to change.

And obviously, a common-law relationship is real and serious and committed.....and yet you continue to say it isn't. Exact same thing as me calling marriage a piece of paper.

Once again, we are simply in the realm of PERSONAL BELIEF. You are free to your own beliefs, though it would be nice if you would stop insulting my relationship and every other common-law couple with what you continue to say.

And you have not been forced to change. You were still able to get married, just like 50 years ago. Saying that you've been forced to change is like those people arguing against gay marriage saying that it will change the nature of straight marriage. It doesn't.

 

[Rob_TO]

Aren't those just "pieces of paper"?

Although I do find it interesting that possession of material items has taken the place of vows in front of family and under God. I'm not sure which is more meaningful and heart-felt, but it does betray something about our current society, doesn't it?

Have you ever actually seen a typical civic or courtroom marriage? They are legal proceedings and do not even mention the word "God" at anytime. Are you saying these types of marriages should also not be recognized by CIC, since they don't fit into your typical religious view of what a "real" marriage should be?

I really don't see what the difference is between a legal common-law couple, or a legal married couple that has gotten married in a small civic process. One couple may have the "stat declaration of common-law", and the other a "marriage certificate". Both have just as good a chance to make the relationship work for the rest of their lives.

 

[steerpike]

And obviously, a common-law relationship is real and serious and committed.....and yet you continue to say it isn't. Exact same thing as me calling marriage a piece of paper.

Once again, we are simply in the realm of PERSONAL BELIEF. You are free to your own beliefs, though it would be nice if you would stop insulting my relationship and every other common-law couple with what you continue to say.

I'm not insulting your belief. I'm describing it. You like bread, i like pizza. But don't tell me my pizza is "just bread", because its more than just bread. It has cheese and tomato sauce and anchovies... but yours is just bread, you are happy with just bread. Good for you. It doesn't mean i'm insulting you if i describe what you have as bread.

And you have not been forced to change. You were still able to get married, just like 50 years ago. Saying that you've been forced to change is like those people arguing against gay marriage saying that it will change the nature of straight marriage. It doesn't.

I gave the example already. People are being pressured to live together for ~1 year before getting married. The idea that "time spent together" is the important part, not the vow in front of family, friends and God, is a new idea that is being forced on everyone. If you refuse to follow, you will be "red flagged". Sounds like freedom to me. /s

 

[steerpike]

Have you ever actually seen a typical civic or courtroom marriage? They are legal proceedings and do not even mention the word "God" at anytime.

They still take a vow and make a commitment to each other.

 

[Alurra71]

They still take a vow and make a commitment to each other.

I was just curious. So if say two people vow to one another to be together forever, how is that different than if they do it with 50 people sitting on the floor or on chairs behind them? Are you saying that somehow it becomes "MORE" because those 50 people overheard a conversation between two people? Common law couples make a personal vow to stay together every day. Just like you do with your wife. You wake up each day committed to one another finanacially, emotionally and mentally. The only difference that a common law couple experiences from we married folk is that in MOST cases, they won't need to seek out the help of the courts to dissolve that relationship if it came right down to it. Maybe THAT is what makes you feel that marriage is more 'secure'? Because you have to work to get separated?

The way divorces are handled now a days, it really just seems more of a money grab than a dissolving of a relationship. I think we ALL know that relationships dissolve every hour of every day everywhere in the world regardless if they have taken marriage vows in front of an audience of if they have given vows to one another in a more private setting.

 

[Rob_TO]

The idea that "time spent together" is the important part, not the vow in front of family, friends and God, is a new idea that is being forced on everyone. If you refuse to follow, you will be "red flagged". Sounds like freedom to me. /s

Not sure if you realize but this "new" idea of un-married people being sponsored under family class to Canada by just living together, has been around for almost 40 years now since legislation to amend the immigration act in 1977.

Also many "new" ideas are not so bad. Many people at the time didn't like other changes to their traditional ways, such as women voting, white and coloured people not being segregated, and same-sex couples being allowed to marry or sponsored at all to Canada.

They still take a vow and make a commitment to each other.

Really what's the difference if it's a vow to each other with no friends/family in attendance in a civic marriage, or a common-law couple signing a stat declaration of common-law with a commissioner of oaths?

Becoming common-law is definitely a commitment.

 

[steerpike]

Not sure if you realize but this "new" idea of un-married people being sponsored under family class to Canada, has been around for almost 40 years now since legislation to amend the immigration act in 1977.

Were they red flagging married couples that hadn't lived together for 1 year first back then? I think they were not.

Also many "new" ideas are not so bad. Many people at the time didn't like other changes to their traditional ways, such as women voting, white and coloured people not being segregated, and same-sex couples being allowed to marry or sponsored at all to Canada.

Fair enough, but that's a new argument. Now instead of claiming i have the freedom i always had and nothing has changed, you now argue that yes its changed but its better that it's changed. Vows don't mean anything anyway. Only time spent together means anything. Well i disagree. Not all change is good, and listing a few examples of good change is a very disingenuous way to frame things.

Really what's the difference if it's a vow to each other with no friends/family in attendance in a civic marriage, or a common-law couple signing a stat declaration of common-law with a commissioner of oaths?

Signing a declaration is not required. Just living together for 1 year.

 

[Rob_TO]

Were they red flagging married couples that hadn't lived together for 1 year first back then? I think they were not.

They aren't red flagging married couples that haven't lived together 1 year before getting married now either. Many people get married after being a long distance couple or living separately until after marriage, and have zero immigration problems, so I really don't see your point.

Fair enough, but that's a new argument. Now instead of claiming i have the freedom i always had and nothing has changed, you now argue that yes its changed but its better that it's changed. Vows don't mean anything anyway. Only time spent together means anything. Well i disagree. Not all change is good, and listing a few examples of good change is a very disingenuous way to frame things.

Again this "change" happened a long time ago. No point in complaining about something that has been policy for some 40 years now.

Signing a declaration is not required. Just living together for 1 year.

Sometimes a VO will demand to see a signed declaration of common-law from a commissioner of oaths. But really whether one signs something or not that says they are a couple, the chance of breaking up later remains the same. Would making the declaration of common-law form mandatory for everyone applying common-law fix the problem in your opinion?

Also I don't think you explained, how 2 people committing to be together via living together 1 year, is any different from 2 people getting married in a private civic marriage with no friends/family there. Both have the same chance of their relationship lasting forever, or possibly breaking up at sometime in the future, which is really what immigrating here should be based on.

Case in point the OPs case here. Had they done a small civic marriage instead of just becoming common-law... they still would have gone through the same relationship issues and would still be in this same situation now.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I'm not insulting your belief. I'm describing it. You like bread, i like pizza. But don't tell me my pizza is "just bread", because its more than just bread. It has cheese and tomato sauce and anchovies... but yours is just bread, you are happy with just bread. Good for you. It doesn't mean i'm insulting you if i describe what you have as bread.

I gave the example already. People are being pressured to live together for ~1 year before getting married. The idea that "time spent together" is the important part, not the vow in front of family, friends and God, is a new idea that is being forced on everyone. If you refuse to follow, you will be "red flagged". Sounds like freedom to me. /s

Right there, you are insulting me. Saying that a common-law relationship is just bread compared to a marriage. Who the hell do you think you are to judge my relationship to be less than yours? That is a ridiculous insult.

And as Rob said above, people are in no way being pressured to live together before marriage. People who married the first time they met in person or who married after knowing each other for a very short time are advised to live together, so that CIC doesn't suspect a Marriage of Convenience. Note the bold on the word marriage; you don't see Common-law of Convenience mentioned because CIC knows that a couple living together for at least a year are genuine.

Those in arranged marriages swear such all-important vows in front of their family, friends and their god. But yet, you said above that arranged marriages shouldn't be accepted by CIC either. Apparently their vows aren't enough for you? How completely contradictory to your "vows are more important that time spent together" opinion. So basically, if a relationship isn't like yours, it doesn't count. How very sad for you to have such a narrow-minded view of the world.

 

[steerpike]

Again this "change" happened a long time ago. No point in complaining about something that has been policy for some 40 years now.

CIC is definitely changing things. Marriage means less than it did. Time spent together means more. Cond 51 is evidence of that shift in thinking. The shift started 40 years ago, and it is continuing. Generations of children are being raised being told over and over and over that vows and oaths mean nothing, marriage is just a peice of paper, and only living together before commitment is the true test. What do you think happens when you raise generation after generation teaching them that?

Sometimes a VO will demand to see a signed declaration of common-law from a commissioner of oaths. But really whether one signs something or not that says they are a couple, the chance of breaking up later remains the same. Would making the declaration of common-law form mandatory for everyone applying common-law fix the problem in your opinion?

Nothing is going to "solve the problem" of people splitting up. That's not what we are debating. And CIC still takes oaths very seriously. There was a case of a man being sworn in for citizenship:

"A citizenship officer at the ceremony determined that the candidate was not articulating the words of the Oath of Citizenship," said CIC spokeswoman Mary Jago.
The man, whom CBC has not identified, was pulled out of line in front of his family while awaiting his citizenship certificate and was told he would not receive it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/05/canada-citizenship-oath_n_1406492.html

There is also on-going court battles about whether new citizens need to take the pledge to the Queen. So CIC does still take oaths seriously, but on the other hand, they are facing enormous pressure to change.

So do Oaths mean nothing, or are they meaningful? I happen to know they are meaningful and do affect human behaviour. Especially honourable human beings, who are become rarer and rarer these days.

Also I don't think you explained, how 2 people committing to be together via living together 1 year, is any different from 2 people getting married in a private civic marriage with no friends/family there. Both have the same chance of their relationship lasting forever, or possibly breaking up at sometime in the future, which is really what immigrating here should be based on.

Case in point the OPs case here. Had they done a small civic marriage instead of just becoming common-law... they still would have gone through the same relationship issues and would still be in this same situation now.

I disagree. I think making commitment and taking vows actually changes human behaviour. At least it does for a large part of the population (there are always low lives who that kind of thing means nothing, of course).

 

[Rob_TO]

CIC is definitely changing things. Marriage means less than it did. Time spent together means more. Cond 51 is evidence of that shift in thinking.

Condition 51 has nothing to do with that. Condition 51 is in place to combat fraudulent marriages or relationships, i.e. ones in which someone has scammed a Canadian into loving/marrying/sponsoring them, or one where the Canadian is in on the scam and is receiving financial gain for it. It's incredibly hard to fake a common-law relationship, so a fake marriage is the method of choice.

Especially in the case of a foreigner scamming a Canadian, this is often pretty easy when in a long distance relationship and only seeing each other for short visits before getting married. So by forcing them to live together for 2 years, hopefully the Canadian will then see over that time that the fraudster does not really love them, and can see their true intentions. Sorry but in many cases you just don't get this same feeling from another person, until you actually live with them.

Condition 51 has nothing to do with genuine married or common-law couples, and to them it shouldn't even be an issue.

I disagree. I think making commitment and taking vows actually changes human behaviour. At least it does for a large part of the population (there are always low lives who that kind of thing means nothing, of course).

So I repeat, you think common-law relationships would then be perfectly valid to you, if CIC just made every common-law couple do the stat declaration in front of a commissioner of oaths??

 

[steerpike]

Condition 51 has nothing to do with that. Condition 51 is in place to combat fraudulent marriages or relationships, i.e. ones in which someone has scammed a Canadian into loving/marrying/sponsoring them, or one where the Canadian is in on the scam and is receiving financial gain for it. It's incredibly hard to fake a common-law relationship, so a fake marriage is the method of choice.

Cond 51 achieves it's goals by using "time spent together" as a method for determining sincerity. They have fallen for the modern ideal and thrown out the old ideals. There's a million ways to deal with fraudulent applicants, but the specific method they chose is very telling indeed.

And yes i suppose it is easy to fake a marriage, but we have spent several generations drilling it into the heads of young people that marriage means nothing. So if it means nothing, they might think, why not fake it? We reap what we sow.

Common-law may be harder to fake (debatable) but it can also be much more easily entered into by people who are no where near ready to "get married" and don't even like each other all that much.

We see it constantly on this forum, someone comes over on a study/work visa for a year, lives with someone, and then after 12 months they want PR status and use that 12 months of habitation as their excuse. If they love the person, they could get married. They could tell their parents and have a ceremony. They could devote themselves. But nah, thats too much trouble, just gimmie the PR. And we do!!

So I repeat, you think common-law relationships would then be perfectly valid to you, if CIC just made every common-law couple do the stat declaration in front of a commissioner of oaths??

It would be an improvement.