Determination of Common Law / Conjugal Relationship

[canuck50]

I am trying to get a determination of our specific situation and tried calling IRCC many times with no answer. I am hoping someone here can help. My Thai partner wants to apply for a visitor visa initially and some time in the future go for family sponsorship, and we want to be careful to be truthful on all applications pertaining to our relationship as follows:

Have lived together for about 5 years in Thailand, but there are annual gaps to allow me to travel to Canada to satisfy Provincial health insurance requirements. Typically I stay with her for 7 months per year and in Canada for 5. The first year I stayed with her for 11 months. We have 3 condo leases over that time with each one being in both our names, utility bills, bank statements, etc. for both to the same address. In our minds we are in a common law relationship and many of the immi documents seem to indicate that our proof is sufficient. However one statement about family sponsorship based on common law reads:

has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months, meaning you’ve been living together continuously for 1 year in a conjugal relationship, without any long periods apart

• Any time spent away from each other should have been
  • short
  • temporary

Does this statement negate all our positive history for common law? Given that I am not allowed to stay out of my home province due to insurance regulations (the initial 11 months was with special permission), it is hard for me to satisfy the 1 year requirement to the letter. But given the fact that it has been over a 5 year period with joint leases etc., would this suffice. The only interruptions have been as stated above and there have been no gaps in our joint condo leases.

Does anyone here gave any knowledge or insight as to how they would interpret our situation, or the best way to get a ruling on this from immigration? Thanks to all in advance.

 

[k.h.p.]

If you've never lived together consecutively for 12 months, apart from at most maybe a few weeks apart, you're not common-law.

Interruptions of 5 months definitely "reset the clock" counting towards common-law status.

In your subject line, you also asked about conjugal status - you're almost definitely not conjugal, as you can live with her for some stretch. Losing provincial health insurance is not an immigration barrier to living together.

So, unfortunately, without having lived together for 12 months (with only a couple weeks break - NOT 5 months) you're neither common-law nor conjugal.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I am trying to get a determination of our specific situation and tried calling IRCC many times with no answer. I am hoping someone here can help. My Thai partner wants to apply for a visitor visa initially and some time in the future go for family sponsorship, and we want to be careful to be truthful on all applications pertaining to our relationship as follows:

Have lived together for about 5 years in Thailand, but there are annual gaps to allow me to travel to Canada to satisfy Provincial health insurance requirements. Typically I stay with her for 7 months per year and in Canada for 5. The first year I stayed with her for 11 months. We have 3 condo leases over that time with each one being in both our names, utility bills, bank statements, etc. for both to the same address. In our minds we are in a common law relationship and many of the immi documents seem to indicate that our proof is sufficient. However one statement about family sponsorship based on common law reads:

has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months, meaning you’ve been living together continuously for 1 year in a conjugal relationship, without any long periods apart

• Any time spent away from each other should have been
  • short
  • temporary

Does this statement negate all our positive history for common law? Given that I am not allowed to stay out of my home province due to insurance regulations (the initial 11 months was with special permission), it is hard for me to satisfy the 1 year requirement to the letter. But given the fact that it has been over a 5 year period with joint leases etc., would this suffice. The only interruptions have been as stated above and there have been no gaps in our joint condo leases.

Does anyone here gave any knowledge or insight as to how they would interpret our situation, or the best way to get a ruling on this from immigration? Thanks to all in advance.

You stated in your other thread that you had lived together for over a year. As you haven't, you are not common-law. You also don't qualify as conjugal because you have no barriers to marrying or becoming common-law. Your personal choice to return to maintain provincial health coverage is exactly that: a personal choice.

There is no ruling or interpretation. Common-law is a legal marital status that requires one full continuous year, 365 days, of cohabitation. Applying with less than that is like applying as married without actually getting married.

 

[canuck50]

You stated in your other thread that you had lived together for over a year. As you haven't, you are not common-law. You also don't qualify as conjugal because you have no barriers to marrying or becoming common-law. Your personal choice to return to maintain provincial health coverage is exactly that: a personal choice.

There is no ruling or interpretation. Common-law is a legal marital status that requires one full continuous year, 365 days, of cohabitation. Applying with less than that is like applying as married without actually getting married.

Yes, my previous comment about over a year was based on my recollection. However, after checking the stamps in my passport I fount it to be only 11 months. I was hoping the many years of joint leases and common mailing address would outweigh the 1 month shortfall, but I guess not.

 

[scylla]

Yes, my previous comment about over a year was based on my recollection. However, after checking the stamps in my passport I fount it to be only 11 months. I was hoping the many years of joint leases and common mailing address would outweigh the 1 month shortfall, but I guess not.

No, unfortunately it won't. You can't have a shortfall with common law. Either you meet the one year requirement or you don't meet the definition and a month is a significant shortfall. There's no leeway.

Have you considered getting married?

 

[canuck50]

No, unfortunately it won't. You can't have a shortfall with common law. Either you meet the one year requirement or you don't meet the definition and a month is a significant shortfall. There's no leeway.

Have you considered getting married?

Yes, discussing that now!