date of the relationship

[ralu1150]

This is in regard common law marital status date of the relationship is when we first met or when we moved in together? Or is it the date one year after we moved in together, when the common-law status officially applied?

Even if i am applying outside of Canada is it ok to place my residence inside Canada? Or should I apply as am in currently living in the States? My common-law and I reside together.

thanks!

 

[BeShoo]

I'm not sure about that. Does it say anything about it in the guide? It's definitely not when you first met. I think it's when you moved in together, because that when it became a long-term, committed relationship officially.

If you're applying outside of Canada, you must have your permanent residence in the States. Your address in Canada is only a temporary address (mainly, it's just a mailing address). If Canada was your permanent addressand you don't have PR, you'd be here illegally.

 

[javcil]

I believe it's one year of continued cohabitation; ie living together.

 

[Manul999]

I think both previous comments have right.

 

[ralu1150]

I'm not sure I understand...

The guide doesn't say anything about this. I guess we can put the day we've moved in together.

For the address: the thing is that we have to be living together to be considered common law. we'd have to have combined our affairs and be in a marriage like relationship. In which we are. So I live in canada with my sponsor (under a visitor ) and we have a lease together. Shouldn't this be my official address?
Is it not inconsistent to say otherwise?

thx!

 

[ColorMePanda]

The matter of common law is that it is a relationship based on facts and not law.
The marriage certificate helps to prove the day a couple married and combined their lives together.
A common law relationship is one where you can prove the start of it and to its continuation of it today.

Basically, a common law relationship can be established anytime that the couple feels they have come to the same commitment as a married couple has and has evidence to show the intermingling of affairs as a married couple might do. If you would like to say that you were in a common law relationship from the moment one asked out each other you can do this. If you feel it was when you first met, you can say this. Or if you believe it was when you officially decided to move in with one another then you can do this as well. Just make sure you have proof of cohabiting for a year with one another. Also know that with a common law relationship, you must prove you qualify as such and must also prove you are a genuine couple and not just living as roommates because we all know anyone can do that. So the more proof you have that combines the two of your names together, the stronger your application will be.

I would look over sections 5.26 and 5.35 for examples of things the IO will possibly be looking for.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

 

[ColorMePanda]

I'm not sure I understand...

The guide doesn't say anything about this. I guess we can put the day we've moved in together.

For the address: the thing is that we have to be living together to be considered common law. we'd have to have combined our affairs and be in a marriage like relationship. In which we are. So I live in canada with my sponsor (under a visitor ) and we have a lease together. Shouldn't this be my official address?
Is it not inconsistent to say otherwise?

thx!

Yes a lease will help a lot if it has been for a year or more. I hope that both of your names are one it.
On the outland application you would list your mailing address as your Canadian address if you are currently residing there temporarily with your partner. You will receive any correspondence from Immigration to your Canadian address.

You will list your US address as your residential address since the US is still your permanent address until you become a permanent resident to Canada. If you are currently residing in the US during the processing then you would list your US address in both the mailing address and residential address. You will then receive any correspondence to your address in the US. Be sure to let CIC know if you decide to reside in Canada for a visit during the processing and ask to change your mailing address to your Canadian one so you do not miss any correspondence to you from immigration.

 

[javcil]

Common-law partner
You are a common-law partner if you are a person of the opposite or same sex, who is living with the sponsor in a conjugal relationship and have done so for a period of at least one year.
If your application is approved and you become a permanent resident of Canada, you will have to meet the definition of a common-law partner before you can exercise any rights or privileges associated with common-law status.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/guides/3999E.pdf

 

[BeShoo]

It's true that you don't have the rights and privileges of common-law status until after a year has passed, but the immigration form really wants to know when you got into a continuing relationship (some IOs might interpret this as "life-long"). While, you could state that you entered into a life-long relationship on the first day you met, this would be a little hard for many people to believe. You don't really know the person until you been with them for a little time, so it's doesn't seem to make sense. (Arranged marriages are an exception, but those are harder to defend. It depends on your local and family culture.)

When I brought by partner across the border a couple of months ago, the IO wanted to write that our conjugal relationship began on the day we met, but there's no way I would claim that, even though we'd been emailing and IMing for 10 months before we met in person. During our third visit, I stayed for just under a month, and we acted much like a married couple. I am claiming that this was a way of "trying out" our relationship, so I'm dating the partnership from the end of that "trial living together" period.

From what I've read, claiming that you entered into a long-term relationship the first day you met will be met with scepticism at the very least, but you've definitely been in a marriage-like relationship since you started living together so I think this is the best date to use, even though you are not legally a couple for non-immigration purposes on that date.

 

[ColorMePanda]

I agree with you BeShoo that a common law relationship is most likely built over a period of time when you start to live together but is that to say that my fiance' and I didn't know that we were going to be in a lifelong relationship upon meeting? We most definitely knew that we were going to be in deep and committed relationship once we had the pleasure to meet one another. We also began living with one another upon meeting. So to say that a common law relationship can not be proven from first meeting could be taken very wrong. It does intend depend of the circumstances but with our circumstances we did begin our life together upon first meeting and have been living together ever since.

The OP should be aware that a common law relationship can be established on whichever date they wish to and can prove the circumstances. Not saying that you are not right but it should be noted that it differs upon the situation and circumstances of the couple.

 

[javcil]

How on earth can you possibly say with a straight face that you are in a common-law relationship from the day you met?!?! Even a hopeless romantic would have difficulty proving that one ... or maybe I am just a little cynical
Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but according to CIC you must have co-habitated for at least one year in order to be classed as common-law.
Good luck trying to convince an IO that you are common-law from the day you met, but never actually lived together.

In Canada, the legal definition and regulation of common-law marriage fall under provincial jurisdiction. A couple must meet the requirements of their province's Marriage Act for their common-law marriage to be legally recognized.

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, as of 2007, a common-law relationship is true if at least one of the following applies:

a) the couple have been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;

b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or

c) one of the couple has custody and control of the child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

 

[ColorMePanda]

No javcil I didn't say you could prove from the moment you met but meaning that you could have an idea that the relationship was going to lead to a conjugal like relationship later after initially meeting and living with one another and start building towards a common law relationship.
I am just saying in our circumstances we could more than likely been able to prove common law if we wanted to but chose not to because we would rather marry.
But once again we have also been living together for almost a year and a half now and for the first few months it was a try out relationship but after that it was a very committed relationship and we started to intermingle our life.

I do not want someone to misinterpret the rules the CIC have set out. It must definitely be understood that it does intend say in the manual that a conjugal relationship is built over the passing of time. I am certain no one is common law or in a conjugal relationship the day they meet but they might be a few months after testing out the relationship and living together then decide to officially combine their lives. I am just trying to show that the date they choose is really up to the choice of the couple and whether they can prove their cohabitation and that they were in a conjugal like relationship for 12 continuous months.

Sorry for any misunderstanding from any of my posts.
To find out what the IO's are most looking for, it would be best to go by the CIC site, their guides, and manuals.
I would also advice seeking information from more experienced members.

 

[BeShoo]

Good luck trying to convince an IO that you are common-law from the day you met, but never actually lived together.

From the OP2 manual:

Other factors that may be considered when assessing a common-law relationship:
• How the couple met and the circumstances that led them to decide to live together.
• The length of time the parties knew one another before they established a common-law
relationship.

Appeal decisions contain statements like the following: "The relationship between the appellant and applicant has evolved in a believable and incremental manner." An incrementally developing relationship is just much more believeable that a claim that it was committed and long-term on the first day of meeting. Even if you believe that, I don't think it's a good idea to try to convince anyone else of it.

Slightly changing the subject (sorry), here is a very interesting court decision which talks about what defines cohabitation: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2008/2008mbqb268/2008mbqb268.html These excerpts may intrigue you:

The fact that parties maintain separate residences does not prevent the finding of cohabitation.... Continuous daily cohabitation is not a necessity for a finding under s. 29 of the Family Law Act. A couple who lived together only on weekends was found to be cohabitating .... Whether a couple has cohabited continuously is both a subjective and an objective test. Intention of the parties is important.

If the definition of conjugal partners (including common-law) is new to you, the entire document is worth reading.

 

[ralu1150]

I found this very helpfull text:
In a common-law or conjugal partner relationship, there is not necessarily a single point in time at
which a commitment is made, and there is no one legal document attesting to the commitment.
Instead, there is the passage of time together, the building of intimacy and emotional ties and the
accumulation of other types of evidence, such as naming one another as beneficiaries of
insurance policies or estates, joint ownership of possessions, joint decision-making with
consequences for one partner affecting the other, and financial support of one another (joint
expenses or sharing of income, etc. When taken together, these facts indicate that the couple has
come to a similar point as that of a married couple – there is significant commitment and mutual
interdependence in a monogamous relationship of some permanence.

source: www .cic.gc. ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

So I think we'll put the date at which we've moved in together. I think it was definitely the big step for us: I quit my job in the US, sold everything, packed my bags n moved here. We've been together 4 years now and lived together for almost 2 years. We've "tested" living together on 2 occasions before for about 6 weeks each time.

For the address...it makes sense what you're saying about the permanent vs temporary residence. I guess 2 years is still temporary residence since he can always be sent back.

I also found this in the doc that i thought was very helpfull:
People who are dating or who are thinking about marrying or living together and establishing a
common-law relationship are NOT yet in a conjugal relationship, nor are people who want to live
together to “try out” their relationship.

thanks lots for the input!

 

[BeShoo]

The "not necessarily a single point in time at which a commitment is made" certainly applies to my relationship. We've never actually sat down and said, "Today is the day," yet I know that day has already gone by, and the forms do ask for a specific date.

I agree that the day you quit your job, sold everything, and moved is the day to use.

On the issue of whether to count from the first day you met, I found this today in a court decision and thought it was worth sharing:

... a conjugal relationship must evidence, to a greater or less degree depending upon circumstance, some or all of the following characteristics.

• There must be credible evidence of the development of a relationship in the time period prior to the beginning of the conjugal relationship (that is the way the couple came to be introduced and the circumstances of their meeting).
• ...

There is definitely an expectation that the relationship needs to develop before it can be considered "conjugal."