A peculiar situation / common law separation?

[szymon247]

Hello guys! Long time lurker here. The board helped me immensely and just a month ago I received my COPR.
I have a problem, however, as my girlfriend of over 5 years could not be counted as common law, as we haven't been living together without long interruptions, while at the same time I am worrying we will not be able to disprove it if CIC thinks we were common law during my PR process if I want to sponsor her through family class in the future. My situation is a little peculiar, but I want everything to be according to the rules while trying to figure out the best course of action to make it possible for us to stay together.

The situation is like this:

1. Me and my girlfriend were together for 4 years in Poland but lived separately.
2. We applied for IEC together, got in and lived together in Canada for 12 months on temporary work permits. During the first months of the stay I applied for PR under the Skilled Worker category as single (no common law status at that time) and got ITA through express entry. I completed all my documentation for ITA and submitted application as single. While waiting for it being processed, technically on the last day of our stay in Canada we briefly reached the common law status as defined by CIC - we had lived together for a year and a day or two.
3. However, the day after we came back to Poland and lived separately for 2 months, which technically broke that status. We would have no documents to prove we lived together as we stayed in our separate family homes. During that time I received my COPR as single. We did not have common law status that I could prove to change the application to include her as we had lived apart for almost 2 months at that point already.
4. We left Poland and lived together in Thailand for 2 months.
5. We left Thailand to Poland again where we lived separately for 3 months, as there was no way to live together - we stayed at our separate family homes.
6. Soon I am about to depart for Canada in order to land and claim my PR - as single, as we are not in common law status due to the long breaks, which according to my understanding broke the common law status and I cannot include her in my application.
7. We want to live together, so she will join me on a study permit to study and live with me in Canada, but she will not be able to work.

The original plan for us now is to land and claim my PR, live together for 12 months and then sponsor her for PR. I am afraid that many things might go wrong, thus looking for your guys advice.
Firstly, CIC might find the 12 months we lived together in Canada suspicious and claim common law status during my PR application process and claim misrepresentation as I didn't change my application to include her, but our common law status lasted only for a day, after which we parted for months to live with our families, thus I knew I will not maintain the common law status and will be technically single by the time I land. Should I be worried about this?
Secondly, if everything goes according to plan and I apply for sponsorship after 12 months of living together in Canada, with her on a student visa, will I not have problems proving that we are indeed common law considering the history I mentioned above?
Lastly, is there anything else I can do to make the situation better?

Guys, I could not find a similar situation, I really need help as I feel like I didn't do anything wrong, but my situation might appear shady to CIC and I ended up mildly depressed by the whole thing, as I'm happy about the PR, but want my girlfriend to be with me. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot in advance!

 

[scylla]

I'm sure others will comment - however I think this is a pretty straight-forward case.

I believe you definitely should have added her as your common law partner to the application and this is going to cause big problems down the line if you go ahead and land using a visa issued to you as a single person. Significant breaks in cohabitation are not permitted during the year to become common law. But once you have lived together for a year continuously and are common law (which you have) - breaks are allowed afterwards without losing common law status.

So in the eye's of CIC, I believe you definitely became common law and are definitely still common law - and you're therefore failing to declare her in your application which negates you sponsoring her in the future (and is also misrepresentation).

 

[szymon247]

I'm sure others will comment - however I think this is a pretty straight-forward case.

I believe you definitely should have added her as your common law partner to the application and this is going to cause big problems down the line if you go ahead and land using a visa issued to you as a single person. Significant breaks in cohabitation are not permitted during the year to become common law. But once you have lived together for a year continuously and are common law (which you have) - breaks are allowed afterwards without losing common law status.

So in the eye's of CIC, I believe you definitely became common law and are definitely still common law - and you're therefore failing to declare her in your application which negates you sponsoring her in the future (and is also misrepresentation).

Wow, I was not aware of that. Thank you for your response. That would make my situation much worse than I had previously thought.
If in my case we gained the common law status a while ago during the ITA application phase, would it not be too late to withdraw the COPR and add her to the application now? It's especially worse as we don't really have many documents proving cohabitation. We don't have shared bank accounts or anything like that and bills are paid only by one person, and we don't have anyone who saw us live together at that time other than landlord. Are the odds in contacting CIC and getting admitted together now good?

Maybe it's easier to prove that we were NOT common law? As the Canada cohabitation phase lasted for just a day over 12 months, but the first few days of that time were spent at different hotel rooms. Still, the passport stamps are the same in our passports.

 

[spousalsponsee]

I agree with Scylla. Once CL status is established, temporary time apart does not end it, so long as both parties consider the relationship ongoing. There's no 'technically' or 'briefly'; you established a CL relationship, and she should have been attached to your application.

You should contact IRCC and see about adding her to your application, and landing together as a CL couple. If they decline, and say there isn't enough proof, then you can show that to them if/when you want to get married/establish CL again and sponsor her.

 

[szymon247]

I agree with Scylla. Once CL status is established, temporary time apart does not end it, so long as both parties consider the relationship ongoing. There's no 'technically' or 'briefly'; you established a CL relationship, and she should have been attached to your application.

You should contact IRCC and see about adding her to your application, and landing together as a CL couple. If they decline, and say there isn't enough proof, then you can show that to them if/when you want to get married/establish CL again and sponsor her.

Thank you! I am just afraid that they might refuse my application altogether or deem inadmissible due to me not mentioning that earlier (we established common law 5 months ago then, after I submitted documents in response to ITA, before i got my COPR) or that I get refused for PR due to us not providing proof of CL.
In case of the former, I don't think my ignorance of their rules is an excuse.
I find posts around the internet against attempting adding spouse after COPR, due to long waiting times and fear of rejection.
Is any of the above a reasonable possibility?

 

[spousalsponsee]

Thank you! I am just afraid that they might refuse my application altogether due to me not mentioning that earlier (we established common law 5 months ago then, after I submitted documents in response to ITA, before i got my COPR) or that I get refused for PR due to us not providing proof of CL.
I find posts against attempting that around the internet.
Is any of the above a reasonable possibility?

It's true that you should have informed them much earlier, but the important thing is that you do it before you use your COPR to land. Once you land, as single, you have committed misrepresentation, and could lose your own PR status as a result. Fixing things now is going to slow you down, but the possibilities get much worse if you're not fully upfront with them.

 

[Sous02]

It is interesting that for the purposes of a pr CIC says that if you break the common law process by living apart you can not be considered common law. Yet in this case it seems that the poster is being told that CIC will still consider them common law. Seems a contradiction. What happens when people break up but then get back together?
When in doubt I always defer to Scylla but this one has me wondering.

 

[scylla]

It is interesting that for the purposes of a pr CIC says that if you break the common law process by living apart you can not be considered common law. Yet in this case it seems that the poster is being told that CIC will still consider them common law. Seems a contradiction. What happens when people break up but then get back together?
When in doubt I always defer to Scylla but this one has me wondering.

As explained in my response to the OP, when there is a break in continuous cohabitation DURING the year to establish common law - then someone isn't considered common law. Once common law is established, breaks in continuous cohabitation are allowed without losing common law status.

If someone breaks up - that's a different matter. However this doesn't apply to the OP's situation. They've been together as a couple since establishing common law status (and therefore are still a common law couple).

 

[scylla]

Thank you! I am just afraid that they might refuse my application altogether or deem inadmissible due to me not mentioning that earlier (we established common law 5 months ago then, after I submitted documents in response to ITA, before i got my COPR) or that I get refused for PR due to us not providing proof of CL.
In case of the former, I don't think my ignorance of their rules is an excuse.
I find posts around the internet against attempting adding spouse after COPR, due to long waiting times and fear of rejection.
Is any of the above a reasonable possibility?

OP - My two cents is that you absolutely have to try adding your common law partner to the application now (don't use your COPR to land). If CIC doesn't allow you to do so and states that they don't believe you are in a common law relationship - then they will be the ones making that decision (and you'll have a record of it) and then you can safely use your COPR (issued to you as a single person) to land. If you don't attempt to add your partner now - I think you could be facing heaps of trouble later when you attempt to sponsor her. Hands down, the safest thing to do is to try to add her to your application now.

 

[spousalsponsee]

It is interesting that for the purposes of a pr CIC says that if you break the common law process by living apart you can not be considered common law. Yet in this case it seems that the poster is being told that CIC will still consider them common law. Seems a contradiction. What happens when people break up but then get back together?
When in doubt I always defer to Scylla but this one has me wondering.

Scylla's explanation above is correct, and the source is http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf -

. After the one year period of cohabitation has been established, the partners may live apart for periods of time without legally breaking the cohabitation. For example, a couple may have been separated due to armed conflict, illness of a family member, or for employment or education-related reasons, and therefore do not cohabit at present (see also 5.44 for information on persecution and penal control). Despite the break in cohabitation, a commonlaw relationship exists if the couple has cohabited continuously in a conjugal relationship in the past for at least one year and intend to do so again as soon as possible

 

[szymon247]

OP - My two cents is that you absolutely have to try adding your common law partner to the application now (don't use your COPR to land). If CIC doesn't allow you to do so and states that they don't believe you are in a common law relationship - then they will be the ones making that decision (and you'll have a record of it) and then you can safely use your COPR (issued to you as a single person) to land. If you don't attempt to add your partner now - I think you could be facing heaps of trouble later when you attempt to sponsor her. Hands down, the safest thing to do is to try to add her to your application now.

Thank you so much for the explanation! I really appreciate the help, as it's invaluable to me.

Is there no risk there that I would be risking my PR in the process, in case something goes wrong? Some people presented adding a partner in a way that "if she doesn't get accepted then my PR will get cancelled also". Will I surely be able to use my COPR as single if adding my girlfriend fails (not enough proof of CL, failed medicals etc.)?

Do you think I should send an email to IRCC explaining the situation, that I want to be honest and if possible add my girlfriend as common law (since we lived together for over a year) but I'm just not sure if we have enough documents to prove our status?

 

[KBH]

Thank you so much for the explanation! I really appreciate the help, as it's invaluable to me.

Is there no risk there that I would be risking my PR in the process, in case something goes wrong? Some people presented adding a partner in a way that "if she doesn't get accepted then my PR will get cancelled also".

Do you think I should send an email to IRCC explaining the situation, that I want to be honest and if possible add my girlfriend as common law (since we lived together for over a year) but I'm just not sure if we have enough documents to prove our status?

There is a difference between declaring her and attempting to sponsor her. Declaring her just means you're letting them know she exists so that you c an be eligible to sponsor her in the future. It wouldn't be something that she could be "rejected" from because you aren't sponsoring her yet, you're just declaring her as a family member.

I know it's a tricky situation, but in my opinion, you should be grateful and thankful you now have the opportunity to resolve it before you've landed and used your COPR. This would be a disaster had you already landed, but it can still be fixed.

 

[szymon247]

There is a difference between declaring her and attempting to sponsor her. Declaring her just means you're letting them know she exists so that you c an be eligible to sponsor her in the future. It wouldn't be something that she could be "rejected" from because you aren't sponsoring her yet, you're just declaring her as a family member.

I know it's a tricky situation, but in my opinion, you should be grateful and thankful you now have the opportunity to resolve it before you've landed and used your COPR. This would be a disaster had you already landed, but it can still be fixed.

Oh, I'm not sure if I understand that correctly - so is there an option of letting them know that she exists without adding her to my application and her having to go through medicals, proving the common law status etc in order to also get her a PR now?
Because from my understanding I have to add her to my application and in it I can choose between her status as "accompanying" and "not-accompanying" with me to Canada. From what I understand the process in the same and risks are the same, the only difference being that if I choose "accompanying" then she also gets a PR now? Is my understanding correct, or is there an alternative path where I can just acknowledge her existence to IIRC so I can sponsor her to Canada in the future without potentially sacrificing my existing PR application?

 

[KBH]

Oh, I'm not sure if I understand that correctly - so is there an option of letting them know that she exists without adding her to my application and her having to go through medicals, proving the common law status etc in order to also get her a PR now?
Because from my understanding I have to add her to my application and in it I can choose between her status as "accompanying" and "not-accompanying" with me to Canada. From what I understand the process in the same and risks are the same, the only difference being that if I choose "accompanying" then she also gets a PR now? Is my understanding correct, or is there an alternative path where I can just acknowledge her existence to IIRC so I can sponsor her to Canada in the future without potentially sacrificing my existing PR application?

What I was referring to was declaring her as non-accompanying.

 

[scylla]

Oh, I'm not sure if I understand that correctly - so is there an option of letting them know that she exists without adding her to my application and her having to go through medicals, proving the common law status etc in order to also get her a PR now?

No - there is no such option.

You can flag her as non-accompanying (meaning she's not coming with you now and you will sponsor her later) - but she still need to do the medicals, get PCCs, prove you're common law, etc.