I am renewing my PR but personally did not stay in Canada for 2 years in the past 5 years. I have been living together with my common law partner in the US for 1 and a half years. If I count the 1 and a half years into the time to fulfill Permanent Residency Obligation, I would be able to fulfill the 2-year requirment. But the law says that we become common law relationship after living together for at least 1 year. So what I am not certain with is whether the first year we lived together count for the 730 days requirement. If not, adding only half a year to my Canada residency won;t be enough for 730 days. Thank you.
Permanent Residency Obligation fulfillment by living with a common law partner who is a Canadian citizen.
- Thread starter 532019337
- Start date
How did you obtain PR status?
People that are living outside of Canada with the Canadian spouse or partner can often times claim those days towards their Residency Obligation (R.O.) towards maintaining PR status. Sometimes, IRCC digs into to `who followed whom' to learn how and why the PR is not living in Canada.
A person is not deemed to be common law until 365 days have passed cohabiting under the same roof. Since you are not married to your Canadian partner and have only been a true common law partner for 6 months, you would not be able to claim days before the one year mark date.
When did you get PR since you would have had to apply for PR after a year of common law unless you were already a PR? When did you move to the US? In general time in Canada as a PR before leaving can be an important factor. Ifyou left soon after becoming a PR that could have implications.
So did you move to the US while you were in a common law relationship or did that occur after you moved?
I obatained PR in August 2019 and maily lived in th US after that due to work which started before I receive my PR. I only had two months in Canada after receiving PR. I started living with my common law partner in December 2021. So the common law relationship occured after I moved.
Last edited:
I obatained PR in August 2019 and maily lived in th US after that due to work which started before I receive my PR. I only had two months in Canada after receiving PR. I started living with my common law partner in December 2021.
Last edited:
Safest to assume you cannot count the time outside of Canada towards the residency obligation since it's very clear you made the choice to move to the US on your own. This had nothing to do with your CL partner. So if IRCC applies the who followed whom rule, that won't work in your case.
Various things do not add up.
For PR Query as to RO credit:
Assuming the citizenship certificate question was for someone other than the PR making this Residency Obligation query . . . addressing the person making the RO query:
December 2021 through late April 2024 adds up to well over 840 days, not just a year and a half, so this is one example making it unclear how you are calculating things. There is a reason why many of the posts here are asking questions about the situation.
In any event . . .
Mostly a follow-up to the caution offered by @Ponga and @scylla; the risk of strictly applying what constitutes "accompanying" a partner:
We do not know much about the odds or probabilities in regards to the risk of IRCC denying RO credit despite living with a Canadian citizen partner, based on concluding the PR was NOT "accompanying" their partner, which was referred to by @Ponga, and clarified by @scylla, other than to say there are actual cases, as reported in official IAD decisions, in which some PRs are DENIED credit toward meeting the RO for time they are living with a Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada, and many more cases in which the Minister's representative in those proceedings argued against allowing the credit but the IAD panel ruled in the PR's favour.
The significance of those rulings is that there is indeed a risk that RO credit can be denied for days a PR is living with a Canadian citizen spouse if IRCC concludes the PR did not "accompany" their partner/spouse in going outside Canada, and if appealed, that the IAD will uphold that.
The significance of seeing the Minister's representative quite consistently advocate that credit should be denied, based on asserting the PR did not accompany the citizen partner, is that this is a strong indication this approach is at least a part of the policy in which this credit is evaluated. Note, for example, while the shifts in IRCC language over the years have been small, incremental changes, where some information previously referred to credit for days a PR is "ordinarily residing" with a Citizen-spouse abroad, in some instances this has been replaced by reference to the statutory term "accompanying" in particular.
The operational manual ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status, still refers to the credit applying for time periods the PR ordinarily resides with the citizen spouse, but that has not been updated in nearly two decades and not only some IAD panels but some Federal Court justices as well have declined to equate ordinarily residing together and accompanying. In particular, even though Section 7.1 in the manual refers to one of the ways in which a PR can meet the RO is by "accompanying abroad (that is, ordinarily residing with) a spouse or common-law partner" who is a Canadian citizen, suggesting that "accompanying" means ordinarily residing with, the Minister's representative has been consistently arguing otherwise and both the IAD and Federal Court have agreed with that in numerous cases.
In terms of total numbers, we do not see a lot of these cases. So we have no practical sense of the odds, the probabilities. But there are enough of these cases to recognize they are not an anomaly; and here again this is reinforced by how consistently the Minister has advocated that living together does not qualify for the credit if the PR did not accompany the citizen.
A small point of clarification:
To clarify, the OP's scenario could be problematic even if the "who-accompanied-whom" or "who-followed-whom" approach is not applied, since it appears neither actually "accompanied" the other in relocating outside Canada. That is, even without considering who-followed-whom, the OP's scenario indicates that they did not even go-with their partner.
Moreover, while we have almost no comparative numbers to help rate the probabilities, the OP's situation appears to be in line with the most damaging elements indicated in those cases that have gone against the PR:
-- no long-term settlement in Canada prior to living outside Canada
-- no living together in Canada prior to departure from Canada
-- -- this includes no concurrence or association in their respective travel leaving Canada, thus neither accompanying the other
It appears that the OP also has one other factor that has loomed large in some cases going against allowing the credit: it appears the relationship begins AFTER the PR is outside Canada (making it virtually impossible to argue the PR accompanied their partner in going abroad).
THAT SAID . . .
There's a lot loaded in that query.
This relates back to not knowing the probabilities. There are many what Brian Klaas might refer to as "forking paths" potentially in play.
Key alternative: if and when the OP is actually intending to settle in Canada, if the OP has lost PR status in the meantime the OP could be sponsored by their Canadian citizen partner for PR. Should be obvious (since an intent to immigrate to Canada to settle "permanently" is one of the eligibility requirements for a grant of PR status) but apparently is not so obvious to many, someone in this situation should WAIT to re-apply for PR in the family class when they are actually ready to make the move to Canada.
Even if the OP's query is about applying for a new PR card, that would require physically coming to Canada and being IN Canada to make that application, and the more prudent approach would be to wait to apply for a new PR card ONLY after the OP has settled here, is here to stay.
The latter leads to the vagaries of RO enforcement by border officials, and what risk there is of a Residency Determination followed by inadmissibility proceedings attendant a Port-of-Entry examination. If the OP only travels to Canada from the U.S. using land transportation and is prepared to present information (and some documentation would be good) supporting the claim to credit for living with a Canadian citizen partner, and especially if the OP does so accompanied by the OP's citizen partner, odds are probably good (perhaps not great, but at least good) there will be no RO problem at the border. With rare exception, the denial of credit for days living together with a Canadian citizen partner have been IRCC cases, NOT CBSA cases. It is noteworthy, in particular, in the published cases we have not seen the representative for the Minister of Public Safety (who advocates the government's case in RO inadmissibility cases arising from PoE determinations) argue against credit for time the PR is ordinarily residing with their citizen partner (much like the guidelines provide in ENF 23), in contrast to the representative for the Minister of IRCC consistently advocating a more strict approach, often specifically arguing for a who-accompanied-whom approach.
Last edited:
Yes, my query as phrased probably sounded more loaded than I had intended.
I'm increasingly wondering in these cases whether coherent advice / comments on the situation is really feasible without at least some understanding of what the PR in this circumstance actually wants to do and is planning to do.
Understandable that most would like to, all things being equal, retain their PR status. But in some cases (no accusation or comment on this specific case) it can appear that there may be little or no interest in actually residing in Canada, or only a desire to retain the option to do so (and possibly just 'in case things don't work out later.')
Now that is potentially 'loaded' in the sense that some (many?) might disapprove, but it is actually relevant in responding, since there are actual costs and trade-offs in many cases. There is no way to really respond if there isn't some actual info as to goals and intentions.
I meant no disapproval at all, but rather an acknowledgement that your query was indeed suggestive of (loaded with) a lot of what-ifs, if-this-then-that but if-that-then-this, and so on, and not just casually alluding to abstract hypotheticals, but real issues . . .
. . . or as I said, borrowing from the title of the rather interesting substack newsletter written by Brian Klaas, there are potentially many "forking paths."
(Klaas seems to be something of a hybrid Christopher Hitchens, David Foster Wallace (the non-fictional side), and Douglas R Hofstadter, and I do not pretend to fully understand his work, or all that much of it to be honest, but enough to, well, believe that even at my advanced age I am expanding my understanding of how things work in this crazy world).
But just that question alone, in itself, is an important one, perhaps the key question, since its answer will largely dictate what options to consider, what is at stake, and point in the direction of how to pursue those options which are potentially feasible. It is often easier for someone who can live in the U.S., and is living there, to maintain their PR status without settling in Canada. But even this will generally pose hurdles and inconveniences and depending on the particulars, involve some risk of losing PR status anyway. And there appears to be no shortage of PRs who have moved outside Canada who are able to retain PR status indefinitely given their spouse is a Canadian citizen, but for those who never actually settled in Canada there is no guarantee this will save their PR status. It can, and often does, get complicated.
Yes, I meant this primarily about the issue that it is quite difficult to provide useful advice when the question is posed without context of what the person actually wishes to do.
And while I do not intend to express any strongly moral personal approval/disapproval, I may simply find less time for those cases when it appears - to me, subjectively - that there isn't really any case beyond retaining PR status abroad indefinitely.
Thank you very much for the detailed information. I somehow messed up the calculation in the post but one thing is clear, if I add the priod December 2021-December 2022, it will be over 2 years, if not, it won't be enough for 2 years. This is the only thing I am concerning now and I would appreciate your specification. I really want to thank all the other concerns people are suggesting. These do leave more room for worries, but I don't have much option and can only add the time I am with my partner to the RO.