The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Karanvir Singh Gill’s application under the Spouse or Common-Law
Partner in Canada class. The applicant was excluded under paragraph 125(1)(d)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations because his sponsor had
not declared him as her common-law partner when she applied for permanent
residence in January 2022. The applicant argued that the evidence did not
support the officer’s conclusion that they were already common-law partners.
The Court disagreed and dismissed judicial review.
Key Principle
An applicant may be excluded from
the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class where the sponsor failed to
declare and have the applicant examined as a non-accompanying common-law
partner during the sponsor’s own permanent residence application. The officer
may rely on the applicant’s detailed relationship timeline, evidence of
continuous cohabitation, emotional commitment, shared household expenses,
financial transfers, travel, and public recognition of the relationship to
determine that a common-law partnership existed. A lack of awareness that the
relationship legally qualified as common-law does not prevent the exclusionary
provision from applying.
Background
The applicant’s sponsor submitted
her permanent residence application on January 14, 2022, without declaring the
applicant as her common-law partner.
During the subsequent inland
sponsorship application, the applicant provided a detailed relationship
timeline stating that the couple had cohabited since 2020. The timeline
described their strengthening emotional bond, shared expenses, travel together,
and public acknowledgement of the relationship.
The evidence also included
financial interdependence, such as electronic transfers of funds and the joint
payment of household expenses.
IRCC issued a procedural fairness
letter explaining that this evidence suggested the applicant had been the
sponsor’s common-law partner when she applied for permanent residence.
In response, the applicant
requested forgiveness and stated that he and his spouse had not understood that
their relationship had legally qualified as common-law since 2021. He explained
that, had they known, he would have been included in the sponsor’s permanent
residence application.
Court Findings
• Relationship Evidence
Supported Common-Law Status
The detailed description of
cohabitation, financial interdependence, shared expenses, travel, and public
recognition reasonably supported the conclusion that the relationship met the
common-law definition.
• Applicant’s Response
Reinforced the Finding
The officer reasonably treated
the response to the procedural fairness letter, together with the relationship
timeline, as acknowledging that the couple had been in a common-law
relationship.
• Legal Unawareness Did Not
Alter the Relationship’s Character
The couple’s claimed ignorance of
the legal meaning of common-law status did not negate the factual existence of
the relationship.
• Exclusion Was Reasonably
Applied
Because the applicant had not
been declared and examined when the sponsor obtained permanent residence, the
officer reasonably excluded him from the inland spouse or common-law partner
class.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the
application for judicial review and upheld the refusal. No costs were ordered,
and no question was certified.
Case Citation:
Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 115 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
