Daoust v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 50661 (IAD): Conjugal Partner Sponsorship Allowed Despite Sponsor Remaining Married to Another Person

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) allowed a sponsorship appeal after finding that the sponsor and applicant met the definition of conjugal partners under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The decision is significant because it confirms that a person who remains legally married to someone else may nevertheless sponsor a conjugal partner, even where there is no legal or practical impediment to obtaining a divorce.

Key Principle

The IAD confirmed that a married person may sponsor a conjugal partner even if they have not divorced their spouse and face no impediment to doing so. The decisive question is whether the parties are in a genuine conjugal relationship characterized by commitment, exclusivity, emotional interdependence, and a shared life, assessed in light of all the circumstances.

Background

Linda Daoust, a Canadian citizen, sought to sponsor John Guidotti, a United States citizen, as her conjugal partner. Immigration authorities refused the application because they were not satisfied that the couple met the requirements of a conjugal relationship. A central issue was that Ms. Daoust remained legally married to another person, despite having been separated since 2012. She had never divorced and had no apparent legal obstacle preventing her from doing so.

The couple had been in a committed relationship since 2012. Although they lived in different countries, they spent extensive periods living together, travelled frequently, participated in family events together, maintained a monogamous relationship, and were widely recognized by family and friends as a committed couple.

IAD Findings

The IAD rejected the Minister’s argument that the conjugal partner category is available only where an applicant faces an impediment to marriage or divorce. The panel held that the definition of a conjugal partner in the IRPR contains no requirement that a couple prove an inability to marry or divorce. The legislation places conjugal partners on equal footing with spouses and common-law partners within the Family Class.

Relying on Haer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 530, the IAD emphasized that immigration law does not give primacy to legal marriage over other recognized family relationships. A sponsor is not required to divorce a third party merely to satisfy immigration authorities. The proper question is whether the relationship, as it actually exists, is conjugal in nature.

Applying the factors identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v. H., the IAD found overwhelming evidence of a conjugal relationship. The couple had shared residences for extended periods, maintained an exclusive and committed relationship since 2012, travelled extensively together, integrated with each other’s families, attended important family milestones, and were consistently viewed by relatives and friends as a genuine couple. Although the evidence of financial interdependence was relatively weak, the IAD held that not all conjugal factors must be present and that the absence of complete financial integration was understandable given the parties’ age, established lifestyles, and residence in different countries.

The appeal was allowed, the refusal was set aside, and IRCC was directed to continue processing the permanent residence application.

Case Citation: Daoust v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 50661 (CA IRB)