Cheating in a common-law relationship and sponsorship

[Haathee-mera-Saathee]

I don't think the answers above are correct. Infidelity during a relationship which has not been disclosed can be seen as "misrepresentation" and will lead to being found inadmissible.

see: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc769/2015fc769.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdcGVybWFuZW50IHJlc2lkZW50IGluZmlkZWxpdHkAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=34

There are lots of cases like this on Canlii

 

[k.h.p.]

I don't think the answers above are correct. Infidelity during a relationship which has not been disclosed can be seen as "misrepresentation" and will lead to being found inadmissible.

see: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc769/2015fc769.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdcGVybWFuZW50IHJlc2lkZW50IGluZmlkZWxpdHkAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=34

There are lots of cases like this on Canlii

There's a large difference between "can be" and "will be," many of which revolve around an intent to misrepresent. Fidelity can contribute to an understanding of the nature of the relationship but can also be used by a decision maker to disqualify the relationship. Theoretically, an "open" relationship that has a high degree of attachment between the two partners but not the outside sexual partner could still qualify in all other respects as a common-law relationship if the attachment, care, expense sharing, etc., still exists.

If a decision maker learns that fidelity was not perfect during a relationship, they may certainly investigate a relationship, but unless that investigation indicates that the relationship is not characterized by a high degree of attachment, etc., etc., I don't believe that the sole factor of a lack of fidelity is determinative or immediately diqualifying.

 

[Amisnic]

There's a large difference between "can be" and "will be," many of which revolve around an intent to misrepresent. Fidelity can contribute to an understanding of the nature of the relationship but can also be used by a decision maker to disqualify the relationship. Theoretically, an "open" relationship that has a high degree of attachment between the two partners but not the outside sexual partner could still qualify in all other respects as a common-law relationship if the attachment, care, expense sharing, etc., still exists.

If a decision maker learns that fidelity was not perfect during a relationship, they may certainly investigate a relationship, but unless that investigation indicates that the relationship is not characterized by a high degree of attachment, etc., etc., I don't believe that the sole factor of a lack of fidelity is determinative or immediately diqualifying.

But it needs to be disclosed because by not disclosing it an error could be made in the administration of immigration

 

[Ponga]

But it needs to be disclosed because by not disclosing it an error could be made in the administration of immigration

Why would it need to be disclosed? Unless the sponsor decides to notify IRCC before the COPR is sent and then ACTIVATED, meaning the primary applicant would then be a PR of Canada...why would they need to know about something that may not be a relationship ending issue to the sponsor?

 

[canuck78]

Actually reading these posts it seems as this may be a second relationship going on at the same time that the first partner may or not be aware of. Canada only allows sponsorship of one partner. You’d need to prove that there is no relationship going on with the first partner in order to sponsor another partner. You would also need to prove during the first sponsorship that you don’t have 2 relationships going on at the same time. Not being monogamous for whatever reason (person preference, religious, etc.) is not supported by the Canadian immigration system.