Castillo-Malunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1130 : Court Finds IAD Unreasonably Treated Couple as Common-Law Without Properly Assessing Whether Their Relationship Was Conjugal

Maria Luisa Castillo-Malunes sought judicial review after the Immigration Appeal Division found that her husband was excluded from the family class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR because he had not been declared or examined when she became a permanent resident. The Federal Court held that the IAD unreasonably concluded that the couple had been common-law partners without adequately examining whether their cohabitation occurred within a conjugal relationship.

Key Principle

A common-law relationship under the IRPR requires more than evidence that two people lived at the same address for at least one year or had a child together. The cohabitation must occur within a conjugal relationship. Decision-makers must meaningfully assess relevant characteristics of conjugality, including mutual commitment, exclusivity, intimacy, interdependence, permanence, public presentation of the relationship, economic support and responsibility for children. A finding based on only selected factors may be unreasonable.

Background

Castillo-Malunes and Dante Malunes met in the Philippines in 2010 while living in a co-ed boarding house near their university. They began dating, became engaged in June 2011 and had a son in October 2012. Castillo-Malunes became a Canadian permanent resident in January 2013 as an accompanying dependent on her parent’s application. She declared herself single with no dependents and did not declare Malunes or their son.

After returning to the Philippines, she married Malunes in February 2015 and later sponsored him for permanent residence. The application was refused under paragraph 117(9)(d). The IAD concluded that the couple had been common-law partners because they had reportedly cohabited from December 2011 to January 2013 and had a child together.

Court Findings

• Evidence of Cohabitation Was Not Undisputed

The Court rejected the IAD’s characterization of the living arrangements as undisputed. The evidence contained differing descriptions of when and how the couple lived in the boarding house, including Castillo-Malunes’ explanation that she misunderstood the meaning of “cohabitation.” The record therefore required closer examination.

• Common-Law Status Required a Conjugal Relationship

The IRPR defines a common-law partner as someone who has cohabited in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. The Court found that the IAD effectively relied only on the duration of alleged cohabitation and the existence of the couple’s child. It failed to analyze the broader characteristics of a conjugal relationship identified in the jurisprudence and immigration guidance.

• Having a Child Was Not Sufficient

The evidence indicated that the couple decided to mutually care for their son only in December 2012, approximately one month before Castillo-Malunes became a permanent resident. The IAD did not adequately address this timing or other factors such as shared services, interdependence and economic support. Both individuals remained financially dependent on their parents when they became engaged.

The Court confirmed that Castillo-Malunes’ reason for failing to disclose a family member would not itself avoid paragraph 117(9)(d). The problem was the inadequate analysis of whether Malunes was actually a family member requiring examination at the relevant time.

Outcome

Judicial review was granted because the common-law finding was unreasonable. No question of general importance was certified and no costs were ordered.

Case Citation:

Castillo-Malunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1130 (CanLII)