There is not enough information for anyone to offer a definitive conclusion as to whether your spouse is a PR in violation of the condition of cohabitating together. (Thus, I obviously disagree with the observation by
Alurra71 that the "answer is yes," since I don't think there is enough information to conclude that.)
You categorically state that "she is a PR with the condition of cohabitating together," but frankly that is a conclusion dependent on the particular facts of a given case. Even if that condition was placed on her at the time of landing, whether or not it continues to be a condition
depends on the particular facts of the case, and that inherently includes the circumstances attendant the breakdown in the relationship.
The condition itself: While the basic premise of the condition requires a sponsored partner to
cohabitate in a legitimate relationship with the sponsoring partner for two years from the day the sponsored person landed and became a PR (noting that the condition only applies to PR applications made after October 24, 2012)
the condition ceases to apply in an instance where there is
evidence of abuse or neglect by the sponsor, or of a failure to protect from abuse or neglect by a person related to the sponsor.
The threshold for this termination of the condition is low. And, without judging whether or not there is such
evidence here (note, the threshold is not that there has been abuse or neglect, only that there is
evidence of such), given that this query is made by the sponsor, a sponsor expressing concern about the financial implications of separation, is enough to raise the question.
That is, it is enough to raise the question: "why does the sponsor ask?"
Is it out of concern for the sponsor's partner?
Is it because the sponsor believes the sponsored partner was deceptive, and entered the relationship for the purpose of obtaining PR status? (Marriage of convenience.)
Or is the reason for the question rooted in wondering if the sponsor can take action which will result in the termination of the sponsored partner's PR status?
It makes a difference. The first of these seems unlikely. There is nothing indicated in the OP's post suggesting the second, and on the contrary this appears to be what was previously, prior to whatever precipitated the breakdown, a settled, genuine relationship. Given the conjunction of concern about the financial implications of this breakdown, with the fact that it is the sponsor asking the question, the third reason looms as at least the potential reason for the question.
Again, I am not judging the situation. I am only pointing out that the question itself, including the manner in which it was asked, raises this question. And thus, the questions posed by
david1697 are not just on point, but are important.
The explicit purpose of the condition is NOT to impose a strict two year minimum stable relationship requirement.
In this regard, it is worth reviewing the backgrounder information about the condition published by CIC:
--
Backgrounder — Conditional Permanent Resident Status
and
--
Backgrounder — Exceptions from Conditional Permanent Residence for Victims of Abuse or Neglect
The objective of the condition is to give CIC tools to deal with the [perceived] problem of marriages of convenience.
It is not CIC's objective to punish sponsored PRs for failing to sustain the relationship for at least two years (although it does impose the risk of the relationship failing on the sponsored PR).
In large part, what the condition does is create a presumption that if the marriage relationship is terminated (and no longer cohabitating constitutes termination of the relationship) less than two years after the sponsored PR landed, and became a PR, the relationship was not genuine and thus the sponsored partner's PR status is terminated. Additionally, a sponsored PR bears the risk that a relationship might fail (for whatever reason, other than death, and so long as there is no
evidence of abuse or neglect) in less than two years, resulting in termination (divorce or ceasing to cohabitate) which would likewise result in a failure to meet the condition and loss of PR status.
CIC thus has the means to target two categories of what CIC perceives to be an abuse of the sponsored partner PR process:
-- those couples who pretended to be in a genuine relationship, to facilitate the obtaining of status for the sponsored person (motives vary, from tit-for-tat family/friend arrangements, in order to get extended family members PR status, to an outright money motive, money paid to facilitate obtaining PR status); if CIC learns a couple is not actually cohabitating shortly after the sponsored person arrives in Canada, CIC has the condition it can enforce, and does not need to prove there was actual fraud of this sort or even an actual marriage of convenience.
-- the sponsored partner did not enter the relationship in good faith, but was using the relationship only to gain PR status; the victimized sponsor, in this situation, only needs to notify CIC that the sponsored partner soon left the relationship after arriving in Canada, and again CIC does not need to prove that the sponsored partner's reason for entering the relationship was to obtain PR status.
If there was some suggestion in the OP's query that the OP was the victim of a marriage of convenience, that would explain why the question is being asked. The absence of this, in contrast to the obvious concern about financial consequences, at least raises the question.
There is a strong argument to be made that if a sponsoring spouse
reminds the sponsored spouse that a failure to reconcile and continue to cohabitate can result in the loss of PR status, that is
evidence of abuse. The implication is all too obvious: concede or I will have your PR status taken away. Combine that with an implication that, as a result, a very young child will be deprived of ready access to one of the child's parents (even if that is not about depriving the sponsored parent access, but about withholding the child's ready access to the sponsoring parent -- every good parent knows that no matter how much apart the parents become, the child's best interest is to have
both parents involved in the child's life), there should be little doubt as to the threatening nature of this, which would be textbook abuse.
This is way, way too common to simply overlook when the sort of question raised here is made. Again, I say this without making any judgment as to whether there is any evidence of such abuse here. But it is also not clear whether there is or isn't an implicit threat here.
Which leads to the post by
eileenf.
The above quote was in response to this:
The suggestion by
eileenf appropriately reflects no judgment but highlights the importance of considering the impact on the young child involved and that, in these matters,
the advice of a settlement worker or an immigration lawyer is highly advisable, for many reasons, including interjecting an objective perspective into weighing a person's options.
And this suggestion was particular appropriate given that the OP is explicitly asking what the OP "should do?" (See topic title after all.) Consult with a settlement worker or lawyer is about as good an answer as anyone can offer.
In contrast, the fact that this query was so focused on the potential negative impact on the (at least temporarily) estranged spouse, and really is not at all about the OP's own status . . . except perhaps the OP's potential liability for support . . . or about the child's status, suggests that the observations posted by
david1697 were indeed appropriate.
Just FYI, you keep wondering why I am asking this question - I ask because I want to abide by the law, and I don't want to risk my wife's PR status. I want to work it all out, but I don't want to risk her losing her PR. That's it, not because of anything else.
