The Federal Court has considered an application for judicial review of a refusal of an application for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant and her Canadian sponsor were cohabiting in a genuine common-law relationship. The Court finds that there was no breach of procedural fairness, but that the decision was unreasonable as the Officer failed to account for key evidence in support of cohabitation.
Key Principle An officer must meaningfully account for key evidence in support of an applicant’s application. Where the Officer does not acknowledge important evidence, the Court may draw the inference that it was ignored, making the decision unreasonable.
Background The Applicant is a citizen of Jamaica who submitted her application for permanent residence in February 2022 on the basis that she is in a common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen. She claims that they have been cohabiting since September 2020 in Brampton.
The Officer requested further documentation including tax returns, tenancy records, and financial records. The application was refused as the Officer identified discrepancies in the parties’ residential addresses, the recent opening of as joint bank account, lack of evidence of pooling of finances, and lack of tenancy or ownership documents establishing cohabitation.
Court Findings The Court did not accept the Applicant’s submissions regarding breach of procedural fairness. The Officer did not make a finding of negative credibility, instead finding that there was insufficient documentary evidence to establish cohabitation, and so a procedural fairness letter or interview were not required.
However, the Court found the decision to be unreasonable, as the Officer failed to acknowledge a school record showing that the Applicant’s child attended school in Brampton, where the Sponsor resided. The evidence supported the Applicant’s claim that she lived in Brampton and was relevant to the issue of cohabitation.
Because the school record was an important piece of evidence, the Court drew the inference that the Officer had failed to reasonably consider it. This failure rendered the decision unjustified and lacking in transparency.
Result
1. Judicial review granted
2. Decision set aside
3. Matter returned for redetermination by a different officer
4. No question certified
