on-hold said:
This is probably an overly picky point -- but how precise do we need to be on our address history? For example:
My wife and I moved back to Canada on October 6th, 2012. We stayed in a hotel for a week, and moved into an apartment on October 13th, 2012. When we're filling out the residency calculator, can we put down:
October 6th, 2012 -- with our apartment's address?
Or do we need to have two entries:
October 6th - October 13th -- Hotel's address
October 13th - present -- apartment's address
The latter seems to me most reasonable -- but at the same time, it's not technically correct, and if we got an RQ, the dates of our lease wouldn't match up with the dates of our declaration. How does one deal with temporary residencies while travelling?
on-hold said:
I know this seems correct, but it is also kind of insane. When my wife and I moved back to Canada, we gave up our apartment in Montana, visited my parents for 5 days, stayed in an Edmonton motel for one week, and rented an apartment. Two other moves were similar -- this comes out to about 15 different addresses, when we've really lived in 4.
I take the long road to get to what I think is a fairly simple approach. For what I offer would be "my approach," skip the analysis and go to near the bottom of this post. While I offer "my approach" I do so emphasizing that in these sorts of things the individual must decide for himself or herself what the best, most appropriate answer should be.
Many if not most of us have been
transient at times in our lives, and accounting for these periods of time oft times will not squarely fit into a bureaucratic box.
Fortunately, usually, requests for address history typically ask for detail by the month and year, and this allows for short transient periods to be, in effect, not reported.
But the citizenship application form specifies information as to the
day in addition to the month and year, and requires there to be no gaps, so does not really allow for transient periods without a fixed place of residence.
Thus, indeed, it can get quite a bit complicated, if not convoluted, in some particular situations.
Generally speaking
Generally speaking, in most contexts, a person is a
resident only at one address at any given time,
and that remains the individual's place of residence until actual residence is established elsewhere. Thus, for example, even though a person in fact vacates a residence a week or three weeks prior to arriving at and establishing a different residence, for most purposes they continued to be a resident at the previous address until they have in fact established residence in the new address. Beyond having the
intent to actually establish that place as one's residence, it does not take much to establish residence (signing a lease or making a deposit, not much).
Persistent transients, however, are oft times recognized as having no permanent place of residence.
Merely staying at this or that place while in transit does not, ordinarily, constitute establishing a residence at that place, and few people intend to have established their residence as such at those places stayed while in transit, so during a period the individual is transient either (1) their place of residence continues to be their
last place of residence, or (2) they are transient without a place of residence. When they finally establish a residence, as of then that becomes their place of residence.
A resident of Calgary, for example, does not become a resident of Toronto while staying in Toronto a week on a business trip, but remains a resident of Calgary. But, as the queries here address, what if the week in Toronto occurs after the individual terminated residence in Calgary and before establishing residence in Halifax? (Note: again, usually, if an individual leaves a residence in Calgary to travel to an as yet undetermined place of residence elsewhere, that individual's place of residence ordinarily would be said to remain in Calgary while the individual is in transit; on the other hand, if the person already has identified a particular place of residence in the destination city, say Halifax, which the individual intends to make his or her residence, and has done some concrete act toward establishing it as such, which might merely be a down payment or deposit toward a lease, if it is the individual's intent it may be fairly said that the place of residence in Calgary terminated as of the date of departure and the new address was established as the individual's place of residence then, and is thus his or her residential address while in transit. Most people do the former, since it comes more natural and it is a lot easier to continue carrying a drivers license, and so on, reflecting the previous address until one is actually physically settled in the new address.)
But residential address history for citizenship applications is NOT an in general scenario:
As already mentioned, unlike in most contexts (including other transactions/applications with CIC) where address history is reported by month and year, CIC requests address history to the
day in addition to the month and year.
And given the importance CIC
might (but usually will not) give to specific dates down to the day, sure, there can be various scenarios in which applying the general approach to
place of residence does not neatly fit into the bureaucratic box, particularly when there is some period of transience between changes in address.
It is highly unlikely there is any one-rule-fits-all.
Thus, this is one of those
figure-it-out-as-best-you-can and use your best judgment situations.
The main thing is to be substantively complete and accurate, and in particular to avoid being deceptive or appearing to be deceptive. In this regard, for citizenship applications, it is generally safest to give more information, more detail, rather than less,
despite the conventional wisdom to generally avoid giving more information to CIC than what is requested. But a lot of detail can be, sometimes, more confusing, attract more attention, and risk raising more questions.
Explanations can always be submitted on a separate sheet of paper, but here too the concern is whether or not doing so can result in more confusion or questions than there might be otherwise.
My approach:
I see nothing inherently wrong about reporting each and every transient address but personally I would not do it that way. In submitting information to bureaucracies I lean totally the opposite of my writing style, that is toward as simple as possible (which my writing almost never is).
Personally I would lean toward incorporating the transient periods into one or the other real places of residence . . . that is, either report the address being left as continuing to be my address until I had a fixed address in my new location (which is what I would usually do), or if I have an actual address I am moving to, perhaps list the new address as beginning the date I left the older fixed address.
But, again, each individual needs to make the best judgment they can for themselves about how to report these things.
Obviously, for anyone (which is most by far) who travels abroad after settling in Canada, address history spans periods of time the individual is abroad. There is no inherent conflict in referring to Toronto as one's address for all of 2014 even though there were a couple three week trips abroad during the year. So I don't think the opposite, reporting one's address abroad as continuing over a period of time the individual has traveled to and is present in Canada, should be a problem either. Those worried that this may appear to CIC to be an inconsistency with the residency calculator travel dates can indeed include a very brief, simple explanation on a separate sheet of paper, no need to elaborate much at all, just noting that notwithstanding address history, during such and such dates applicant was
in transit before establishing new place of residence.
Effect on residency calculation:
For purposes of the residency calculation, for purposes of calculating how much time an individual was present in Canada, the travel history declared in the residency calculation is what counts (well, technically not necessarily for a
shortfall application, but that's a separate story). The address history should comport with and support that calculation, but what really counts is the residency calculation itself. Again, anyone who apprehends CIC might perceive some inconsistency between what is reported in the address history and the declared travel dates (especially date of entering Canada) can attach a very brief explanation on a separate page.
