What are the set livingrequirements for my common-law based permanent residence?

[steerpike]

Is it really that risky, since I am on good terms with my ex-common law, to try to manage to make this year pass as offical common-law partners?

You are asking people to coach you on how to committ immigration fraud.... And people are helping you.... Sick.

This is why there should be no "common-law" class. If someone isn't reasdy to get married, they aren't ready to sponsor.

 

[Ponga]

You are asking people to coach you on how to committ immigration fraud.... And people are helping you.... Sick.

This is why there should be no "common-law" class. If someone isn't reasdy to get married, they aren't ready to sponsor.

But a conditional PR can also apply to a married couple that has been together less than 2 years.

Don't `blame' the Common-Law class!

 

[canuck_in_uk]

This is why there should be no "common-law" class. If someone isn't reasdy to get married, they aren't ready to sponsor.

Why do you say that?

What about the married couples that come to Canada and split in the first year? How are they any different than this couple? The fact that they are common-law instead of married has nothing to do with the situation. Had they been married, OP could still be proposing to do this, putting off the divorce until the Conditional PR time was over.

It's not a matter of "being ready to get married". Not everyone actually wants to get married, or even can get married. For many of us, a piece of paper from the government doesn't "legitimize" our relationship to be more than it was as common-law.

 

[steerpike]

But a conditional PR can also apply to a married couple that has been together less than 2 years.

Don't `blame' the Common-Law class!

The common law class, in most cases, is for people who are not serious or "not ready" to get married. Yes it is true that even married couples split up, but at least they have made a committment to each other. Common-law applicants have not made any committment whatsoever, so its bizarre we allow them to sponsor their partner.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

The common law class, in most cases, is for people who are not serious or "not ready" to get married. Yes it is true that even married couples split up, but at least they have made a committment to each other. Common-law applicants have not made any committment whatsoever, so its bizarre we allow them to sponsor their partner.

I disagree with that completely. My partner and I are common-law and have been together for over 5 years. We have moved countries several times to be together. Our commitment to each other is no less than all of those people with a piece of paper.

What do you say to arranged marriages? Do you believe that an arranged couple who met once before their wedding and have spent only a month or two with each other have a more solid relationship than a common-law couple such as my partner and I?

 

[steerpike]

I disagree with that completely. My partner and I are common-law and have been together for over 5 years. We have moved countries several times to be together. Our commitment to each other is no less than all of those people with a piece of paper.

Marriage isn't a just peice of paper. It is a vow, a social/familiar contract. Commonlaw partners have no vow. They have no social contract. In my eyes, that is a huge difference. The sponsorship is a contract and a committment, and i should only be permitted if the couple have already made a committment to each other.

What do you say to arranged marriages? Do you believe that an arranged couple who met once before their wedding and have spent only a month or two with each other have a more solid relationship than a common-law couple such as my partner and I?

Theres no way arranged marriages should be allowed to sponsor either. That's just common-sense. But at least the partners in an arranged marriage have taken a vow and committed to each other.

I'm not saying commonlaw partners don't stay together for a long time, of course they do, but its on a day to day basis. Not the kind of thing Canada should be granting permanent residency to.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Marriage isn't a just peice of paper. It is a vow, a social/familiar contract. Commonlaw partners have no vow. They have no social contract. In my eyes, that is a huge difference. The sponsorship is a contract and a committment, and i should only be permitted if the couple have already made a committment to each other.

Theres no way arranged marriages should be allowed to sponsor either. That's just common-sense. But at least the partners in an arranged marriage have taken a vow and committed to each other.

I'm not saying commonlaw partners don't stay together for a long time, of course they do, but its on a day to day basis. Not the kind of thing Canada should be granting permanent residency to.

The key words there being "In [your] eyes". In your eyes, it's a commitment, a vow, a contract etc. In MY eyes, marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper. It won't change my relationship with my partner, it won't make us closer than we already are and it doesn't bind us together forever, as a divorce is really easy to get these days. For us, it won't make us any more committed than we already are.

It's different for everyone and you need to understand that. CIC understands that and that is why they offer the common-law class.

And common-law partners aren't together on a "day to day" basis. My partner and I have a joint lease, a joint bank account, we own a car together, we own a pet together. There is no way that our relationship can be called uncommitted or "day to day".

 

[little_apple]

You are asking people to coach you on how to committ immigration fraud.... And people are helping you.... Sick.

This is why there should be no "common-law" class. If someone isn't ready to get married, they aren't ready to sponsor.

There are many married people who commit fraud as well.

Just because I didn't get married (I'm "only" common-law) doesn't mean I'm not "ready" to get married and will commit fraud.
My common-law relationship is serious but we just don't want to get married. We chose not to have children either. People look at us like aliens just because of our choice of living our lives. It's nobody's business if we marry or have kids. Just because someone has a piece of paper called marriage certificate and a matching ring doesn't mean the relationship is more serious than a common-law relationship.

If my relationship would break down I would leave Canada because he is the only reason why I'm in this country.

I just agree with the part that people try to help him to commit fraud here. That's stupid.

 

[Ponga]

The common law class, in most cases, is for people who are not serious or "not ready" to get married. Yes it is true that even married couples split up, but at least they have made a committment to each other. Common-law applicants have not made any committment whatsoever, so its bizarre we allow them to sponsor their partner.

[Testing...1,2,3...]

"Earth to steerpike..."

It's 2014 and in case you didn't get the memo, common-law couples that apply are in fact VERY serious and are not ready for marriage.

Heck, some may never EVER get married. Does that still mean that they're not serious?

Unbelievable to even see that narrow minded comment.

 

[little_apple]

Marriage isn't a just peice of paper. It is a vow, a social/familiar contract. Commonlaw partners have no vow. They have no social contract. In my eyes, that is a huge difference. The sponsorship is a contract and a committment, and i should only be permitted if the couple have already made a committment to each other.

Theres no way arranged marriages should be allowed to sponsor either. That's just common-sense. But at least the partners in an arranged marriage have taken a vow and committed to each other.

I'm not saying commonlaw partners don't stay together for a long time, of course they do, but its on a day to day basis. Not the kind of thing Canada should be granting permanent residency to.

How do you know there was no vow?
We have a common-law contract (official piece of paper) so that in case of splitting up we won't fight over money or property. I don't think we would fight but you never know.
We have $300,000 dept because we chose to buy a condo. I have fights with my family because I left them behind. I left a higher income behind to work in a lower skilled job.
Why would I enter a "fake" common-law relationship to move to Canada if I had a better life before?

Don't tell me this is no commitment...

 

[steerpike]

And common-law partners aren't together on a "day to day" basis. My partner and I have a joint lease, a joint bank account, we own a car together, we own a pet together.

Aren't those just "pieces of paper"?

Although I do find it interesting that possession of material items has taken the place of vows in front of family and under God. I'm not sure which is more meaningful and heart-felt, but it does betray something about our current society, doesn't it?

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Aren't those just "pieces of paper"?

Although I do find it interesting that possession of material items has taken the place of vows in front of family and under God. I'm not sure which is more meaningful and heart-felt, but it does betray something about our current society, doesn't it?

Our pet is hardly a piece of paper. You were arguing that common-law couples haven't committed; those are just some of the things that show we are committed to our life together.

I find it interesting that people place so much value on saying some words in front of an audience, as it doesn't mean a whole lot to me. "Under God" is, again, just your point of view. Like so many others in Canada and around the world, I don't believe in a god. Our families are already aware and fully supportive of our relationship, so for us, "vows" in front of them are just a bunch of words.

I don't believe that this betrays anything except that society, traditions and cultural norms evolve and change. And that different people value different things in different ways.

 

[steerpike]

Our pet is hardly a piece of paper. You were arguing that common-law couples haven't committed; those are just some of the things that show we are committed to our life together.

I find it interesting that people place so much value on saying some words in front of an audience, as it doesn't mean a whole lot to me. "Under God" is, again, just your point of view. Like so many others in Canada and around the world, I don't believe in a god. Our families are already aware and fully supportive of our relationship, so for us, "vows" in front of them are just a bunch of words.

I don't believe that this betrays anything except that society, traditions and cultural norms evolve and change. And that different people value different things in different ways.

You dismiss marriage as "just a peice of paper" and then proceed to list a bunch of other peices of paper. I just found that interesting. And they were all related to financial arrangements. As if that is the be all and end all of everything. Traditions do evolve, but its sad to see what they are evolving into.

You even have a "piece of paper" outlining the contract for your pet, but refuse to have one outlining your relationship with each other. Personally, my spouse is more important to me than my pet. But I guess i'm just hopelessly old-fashioned.

Common-law exists because some people were living together for a long time, and then would split-up. Courts felt that in that case one partner (usually the woman) was entitled to some financial compensation, just like in a divorce. Far enough, i suppose. I don't have a problem with that.

But by extending common-law into being a qualification for sponsorship, CIC has moved the meainging of the relationship far beyond the purpose intended by the courts.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

You dismiss marriage as "just a peice of paper" and then proceed to list a bunch of other peices of paper. I just found that interesting. And they were all related to financial arrangements. As if that is the be all and end all of everything. Traditions do evolve, but its sad to see what they are evolving into.

You even have a "piece of paper" outlining the contract for your pet, but refuse to have one outlining your relationship with each other. Personally, my spouse is more important to me than my pet. But I guess i'm just hopelessly old-fashioned.

Common-law exists because some people were living together for a long time, and then would split-up. Courts felt that in that case one partner (usually the woman) was entitled to some financial compensation, just like in a divorce. Far enough, i suppose. I don't have a problem with that.

But by extending common-law into being a qualification for sponsorship, CIC has moved the meainging of the relationship far beyond the purpose intended by the courts.

What I said was that to me, marriage is a piece of paper. Those other connections mean more to me than marriage. For you, they are simply financial arrangements; for me, they are the combining of our lives. We have no contract for our pet, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean there.

Again, it's only your personal belief that "it's sad to see" what traditions are evolving into. Many of us have no issues with this evolution and actually welcome the changes that fit better with our chosen life.

It's not that we refuse to have a contract outlining our relationship. You need to understand that WE DON'T SEE THE NEED TO HAVE CONTRACT DEFINE OUR RELATIONSHIP.

The definition of common-law was not created because unmarried couples were splitting up. It was created because they were staying together and wanted the same rights as married people: to share benefits such as medical/dental, life insurance, to have legal rights to their common property if one partner happened to die, to file taxes together, to deal with the legal responsibilities for their children together etc.

CIC hasn't in any way "moved the meaning...beyond the purpose intended by the courts." The courts recognize a common-law relationship as essentially equal to a married relationship, as does CIC.

Really, this is simply a matter of our differing beliefs and views on the world. Luckily, we live in a free country where we are all entitled to our own beliefs and no one person is right or wrong. I respect your belief that marriage is important and fully support you in your choice to be married. However, I expect that you will fully support my choice of a common-law relationship, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[little_apple]

What I said was that to me, marriage is a piece of paper. Those other connections mean more to me than marriage. For you, they are simply financial arrangements; for me, they are the combining of our lives. We have no contract for our pet, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean there.

Again, it's only your personal belief that "it's sad to see" what traditions are evolving into. Many of us have no issues with this evolution and actually welcome the changes that fit better with our chosen life.

It's not the we refuse to have a contract outlining our relationship. You need to understand that WE DON'T SEE THE NEED TO HAVE CONTRACT DEFINE OUR RELATIONSHIP.

The definition of common-law was not created because unmarried couples were splitting up. It was created because they were staying together and wanted the same rights as married people: to share benefits such as medical/dental, life insurance, to have legal rights to their common property if one partner happened to die, to file taxes together, to deal with the legal responsibilities for their children together etc.

CIC hasn't in any way "moved the meaning...beyond the purpose intended by the courts." The courts recognize a common-law relationship as essentially equal to a married relationship, as does CIC.

Really, this is simply a matter of our differing beliefs and views on the world. Luckily, we live in a free country where we are all entitled to our own beliefs and no one person is right or wrong. I respect your belief that marriage is important and fully support you in your choice to be married. However, I expect that you will fully support my choice of a common-law relationship, even if you don't agree with it.

:-* +1