Common-Law Sponsorship Question

[Kit1996]

Hello everyone,

My partner and I are going to be starting the process of sponsorship via Common-Law, In-Canada. We've sought out a lawyer on the ins and outs of what we need, and we were wondering about the kind of information an agent might request of us outside of the things outlined in the application. Bank statements, utility bills, and the like are all well and good, but say, for example; We provide proof of Co-habitation, a lease with our names on it, can the agent then ask for proof of payment of that lease? Are there any other examples you guys might be able to think of?

 

[armoured]

Hello everyone,

My partner and I are going to be starting the process of sponsorship via Common-Law, In-Canada. We've sought out a lawyer on the ins and outs of what we need, and we were wondering about the kind of information an agent might request of us outside of the things outlined in the application. Bank statements, utility bills, and the like are all well and good, but say, for example; We provide proof of Co-habitation, a lease with our names on it, can the agent then ask for proof of payment of that lease? Are there any other examples you guys might be able to think of?

Don't overthink it. Go through the instructions, do what they say, if IRCC wants more, they'll ask - that's not very common. Then go through the instrcutions and check.

One quick q: how long have you been living together? It can help if greater than 12 months (i.e. not bare minimum), and provide perhaps a bit more than the basics of what they ask, but not too much.

 

[Kit1996]

Don't overthink it, got it. My partner might have trouble doing that, but the response is appreciated lol. As for your other question; we've lived together off and on for like 4 years now, but we understand that we can't start the application until we live together continuously for a year. We're gonna start that year in a couple of months.

 

[armoured]

Don't overthink it, got it. My partner might have trouble doing that, but the response is appreciated lol. As for your other question; we've lived together off and on for like 4 years now, but we understand that we can't start the application until we live together continuously for a year. We're gonna start that year in a couple of months.

I don't know your situation but the obvious approach to make this work is get married, get your certificate, and then apply. You'd save at least a year, and some scrutiny: while common law apps are not 'hard', they are subject to scrutiny to make sure the one year of cohabitation is solid. Married - cohabitation history only supplements the legal test of marriage.

 

[Ponga]

I don't know your situation but the obvious approach to make this work is get married, get your certificate, and then apply. You'd save at least a year, and some scrutiny: while common law apps are not 'hard', they are subject to scrutiny to make sure the one year of cohabitation is solid. Married - cohabitation history only supplements the legal test of marriage.

How on earth is that `the obvious approach'? Isn't it just your obvious approach?

Now, if the OP was asking how quickly the sponsorship application could be submitted, then I would concur that it would be the obvious approach...in my opinion, of course.

 

[armoured]

How on earth is that `the obvious approach'? Isn't it just your obvious approach?

Okay, obvious to me. I can't help if other people don't see the obvious, even after I've pointed it out.

 

[Ponga]

Okay, obvious to me. I can't help if other people don't see the obvious, even after I've pointed it out.

Perhaps, but only if the OP and their partner have even discussed that as an option. And just because you've `pointed it out' does not make it obvious to everyone else.

 

[armoured]

Perhaps, but only if the OP and their partner have even discussed that as an option.

Disagree. Any couple taking on the responsibilities of common law and sponsorship absolutely should discuss. It's a marriage-like relationship, and signing on to serious financial and legal commitments.

Those that don't discuss and consider the relative benefits and disadvantages - which can include, of course, not wanting to get married, but also the extra amount of time to sponsor and the attendant risks - are being absolutely derelict in responsibilities to themselves and their partners.

It's up to them to discuss and decide either way, sure - but I don't feel remotely bad about stating explicitly it's something that should be considered.

And just because you've `pointed it out' does not make it obvious to everyone else.

I suppose pointing out I was obviously kidding about that part won't help in this instance either, then.

 

[Ponga]

Disagree. Any couple taking on the responsibilities of common law and sponsorship absolutely should discuss. It's a marriage-like relationship, and signing on to serious financial and legal commitments.

Those that don't discuss and consider the relative benefits and disadvantages - which can include, of course, not wanting to get married, but also the extra amount of time to sponsor and the attendant risks - are being absolutely derelict in responsibilities to themselves and their partners.

It's up to them to discuss and decide either way, sure - but I don't feel remotely bad about stating explicitly it's something that should be considered.



I suppose pointing out I was obviously kidding about that part won't help in this instance either, then.

Would you consider this as `discussing':
First party:"I've been married before and don't want to get married again, at least not right now" (or something similar)

Second party: "Ok"

Or, do you feel that a discussion about marriage has to be substantially more?

Regarding the dereliction in responsibilities, one would think that both the sponsor and the sponsored partner would know exactly what's involved and what the responsibilities are in the areas that you've highlighted.

 

[armoured]

Would you consider this as `discussing':
First party:"I've been married before and don't want to get married again, at least not right now" (or something similar)

Second party: "Ok"

Or, do you feel that a discussion about marriage has to be substantially more?

Up to each couple, but yes, I would not consider that discussion 'substantive.' The issues of 'why', 'what's the difference' (between that and common law responsibilities), and - depending which party - better discussion of the risks one is exposed to by waiting and not being sponsored earlier seems the minimum one might reasonably expect.

Regarding the dereliction in responsibilities, one would think that both the sponsor and the sponsored partner would know exactly what's involved and what the responsibilities are in the areas that you've highlighted.

Is that your experience in reading the threads here? That all couples actually are aware and have discussed? That they do know exactly what's involved, the risks, etc?

It's not mine. Lots of cases of complete cluelessness, many more cases of vague awareness.

That said: my opinions. People are free to get by and go on however they wish, including not actually discussing stuff with their notional spouses.