How to show my spouse was not a common-law partner

[Zazz1]

Hi, I'm very new to this forum and looking for some advice and ideas.
I was in a process of sponsoring my spouse and after reading some threads about undeclared common-law on this forum, it made me wonder if my initial assessment/understanding about the common-law was correct and how to adequately show that a common-law relationship did not exist at the time of express entry application or landing.


My history-
My and my husband's families used to know each other and this is how we knew each other when we were in our country. We went to the US separately to study- he went first and I went after 3 months. Initially, I was living in a different town than him but the area I was living in was not safe. There were frequent criminal activities happening around so, after 6 months, I decided to leave that area and share his apartment for safety reasons.
I stayed at his place for 6 months and then we went to our country for around 1 month during the course break. When we returned, his lease was about to be expired in a month so we tried to find another place but due to the short-time period, we couldn't find a place so he had to extend the lease for another 6 months.
Now if we don't consider the 1-month vacation, I stayed at his place for 1 year where I was not included in the lease. We didn't have the joint bank account and we weren't included as each other's beneficiaries in any document.

In those last 6 months, we were able to find another place so we changed the apartment and signed the lease together. I stayed at that new apartment only for around 5 months and then I changed the job and moved to another city. 7 months after moving out I applied for the Express Entry and when I was applying I assessed our situation and based on the common-law definition, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't qualify as a common-law relationship.

"a common-law partnership means that a couple have lived together for at least one year in a conjugal relationship. A common-law relationship exists from the day on which two individuals can provide evidence to support their cohabitation in a conjugal relationship."

Though we weren't completely stranger to each other and had some positive feelings, we did not completely meet the conjugal relationship definition. Also, it says the common-law relationship exists from the day on which two individuals can provide evidence to support their cohabitation in a conjugal relationship and we didn't have enough evidence to support cohabitation for the first 12 months because as I said we didn't have a signed lease together or a joint account. And when we did sign the lease together, I only stayed at that place for 5 months. So there was not enough evidence to prove a common-law relationship and I thought it may be perceived as a wrong information. So I applied as single.

Now skipping ahead, 4 months after I applied through EE (12 months after I moved out), I changed the job, moved to another city and he also ended up being in the same city so we again shared the apartment and 8 months into that, I landed into Canada to become a PR. Now even this time, we didn't stay for 1 full year so it didn't qualify as a common-law relationship.

Almost 15 months after becoming a PR we finally agreed to get married and now I'm applying for his sponsorship.


Things about common-law relationship were clear in my mind but when I was filling out the address history, I started to wonder that since we have the same addresses for 1.5 years initially and then again for 8 months before I landed as a PR, would it be possible that the officer won't like it and would reject the application for misrepresentation like what other people have experienced on this forum?

It is a very tricky situation. Initially, I was concerned about not having enough proofs to show a common-law relationship and feared that the application will be rejected due to lack of evidence and now I'm worrying that the officer may think it was a common-law relationship and would reject for misrepresentation.

I would really appreciate any advice on how to handle this. If anyone has been through a similar situation or has any knowledge, please share!

Thanks!

 

[goldfinger]

This seems oddly common, cases where common law ambiguity exists.
It might serve you to attach an explanation on you application regarding that section?

 

[armoured]

I understand ambiguity exists here but it would help here to be clear: were you and your (now) spouse during the first period of cohabitation in a romantic/physical relationship, or not?

During the period of about a year where you were not living together, did you continue that romantic/physical relationship?

If the answer to that second question is a clear 'no,' then you can consider/state truthfully that you had mutually ended any common law relationship you may have had.

If the answer to the first question is a clear 'no,' then you were not in a common law relationship to begin with, although it may be very hard to demonstrate that.

A letter of explanation may indeed help (as address history and 'how you met' questions in the application will make this clear). Again, assuming truthful, I'd put emphasis on the point that during the (first) period you lived apart (i.e. when you applied for your own PR), you were not in a romantic/physical (i.e. conjugal) relationship.

It's not clear from above but I would suggest applying only after getting married - because from what I understand of your timeline, if your first period of living together were to count as common law, you potentially committed misrepresentation; if it does not, then you cannot apply under common law.

 

[armoured]

Just to note, I'm not asking for details of your relationship here, I just mean that you can only be clear in your explanations to IRCC and your application if you straighten these things out in your head and are clear and truthful.

 

[Zazz1]

Just to note, I'm not asking for details of your relationship here, I just mean that you can only be clear in your explanations to IRCC and your application if you straighten these things out in your head and are clear and truthful.

Thanks, @armoured for answering!
Just to clarify, yes, we got married a few months ago and now I am applying under the Spouse Sponsorship. To me, we weren't qualifying as common-law so applying under that category wasn't an option.

Two follow-up questions-
1. Do you think that mentioning that 1-month vacation in the explanation letter would make any difference or can it still be considered as 1 year of continuous stay?

2. The second part of common-law definition says "A common-law relationship exists from the day on which two individuals can provide evidence to support their cohabitation in a conjugal relationship".
Since the existence or non-existence of conjugal relationship is hard to prove and also a little bit subjective, can I tell that we did not qualify as common-law for the initial 1 year because we did not have evidence to support the cohabitation? Such as I wasn't on the lease, we had separate cellphone plans, etc.

I'm trying to gather some ideas to write a better explanation letter.

 

[Zazz1]

This seems oddly common, cases where common law ambiguity exists.
It might serve you to attach an explanation on you application regarding that section?

Thanks!
Yes, seems like writing an explanation letter would be the only option to not have the application rejected right away. Not sure if the officer will accept it though!

 

[canuck78]

There was a case exactly like this posted in the past week. Unfortunately they were denied because the spouse was not included on the original PR application. It is tough to prove that you are common law but it can be very tough to prove that you weren’t common law when you move to various apartments together. Does your spouse qualify for PR on his/her on? That would be your best option.

 

[goldfinger]

There was a case exactly like this posted in the past week. Unfortunately they were denied because the spouse was not included on the original PR application. It is tough to prove that you are common law but it can be very tough to prove that you weren’t common law when you move to various apartments together. Does your spouse qualify for PR on his/her on? That would be your best option.

As an aside, isn’t it kind of rough that IRCC takes the most inconvenient option to believe? If you try and sponsor someone as common law you are subject to incredible scrutiny, and if you weren’t common law with someone but lived with them and want to sponsor them later, well, you must have been common law!

 

[canuck78]

As an aside, isn’t it kind of rough that IRCC takes the most inconvenient option to believe? If you try and sponsor someone as common law you are subject to incredible scrutiny, and if you weren’t common law with someone but lived with them and want to sponsor them later, well, you must have been common law!

With concrete proof you can prove common law. Most people don’t plan for the fact that they will have to prove common law. It is not unheard of for Young people to be roommates because their parents would not allow them to live together but in fact they are a couple. This is especially the case if you’ve lived together for multiple moves.