Marshall v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 356 : Common-Law Sponsorship Refusal found Unreasonable Where Officer Failed to Consider Important Evidence of Cohabitation

The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant and her sponsor had been cohabiting in a common-law relationship since September 2020. Although the Officer identified several discrepancies in the documentary evidence, the Court found that the Officer failed to acknowledge an important school record supporting the Applicant’s claim that she resided in Brampton with the Sponsor. This failure resulted in a lack of transparency and justification in the decision.

Key Principle

Where an officer fails to acknowledge important evidence that directly supports an applicant’s position, the Court may infer that the evidence was not reasonably considered. The more important the evidence, the stronger the inference that the decision-maker failed to properly account for it. A decision must demonstrate a transparent and rational assessment of the evidence as a whole.

Background

The Applicant, a Jamaican citizen, claimed to be in a common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen. She alleged that they had met in July 2018 and had been cohabiting in Brampton since September 2020. She applied for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class in February 2022. At the time, she was in Canada on a temporary resident permit issued in relation to family violence and had also pursued an H&C application.

The Officer requested additional evidence, including tax returns, rental agreements, phone bills and financial statements. The Officer ultimately refused the application because the documentary evidence did not sufficiently establish cohabitation. The Applicant’s and Sponsor’s tax returns listed different residential addresses, hospital records showed the Applicant’s address as Markham, and there was no tenancy or ownership documentation demonstrating joint residence. The Officer also noted that their joint bank account had only been opened shortly before the permanent residence application.

Court Findings

• The Officer’s Concerns About the Documentary Evidence Were Not Per Se Unreasonable

The Court found that the Officer was entitled to consider the inconsistent addresses appearing on the parties’ tax returns, medical records and other documents when assessing whether the Applicant and Sponsor had actually cohabited as claimed. The Officer also reasonably considered the limited evidence of financial commitment and the relatively recent opening of the joint bank account.

• The School Record Was Important Evidence

The Applicant argued that the Officer had failed to consider a school record showing that her child attended school in Brampton, where the Sponsor lived. The Court found that although the record was not necessarily determinative, it provided evidence supporting the Applicant’s claim that she may have resided in Brampton. It was therefore sufficiently important that the Officer was required to acknowledge and consider it.

• Failure to Address the Evidence Made the Decision Unreasonable

Because the Officer did not mention the school record, the Court inferred that the evidence had not been reasonably considered. When the evidence was viewed as a whole, this omission resulted in a lack of transparency and justification. The Court therefore found the Officer’s conclusion unreasonable.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Was Established

The Court rejected the Applicant’s procedural fairness argument. The Officer had not made an adverse credibility finding but instead concluded that there was insufficient objective documentary evidence establishing the claimed cohabitation. The Applicant therefore was not entitled to a procedural fairness letter or oral interview on that basis.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question for certification was raised or certified.

Significance: Marshall confirms that although immigration officers are entitled to weigh evidence concerning common-law cohabitation, they must meaningfully address important evidence that supports the applicant’s position. Failure to acknowledge such evidence may render the decision unreasonable under Vavilov.

Case Citation:

Marshall v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 356 (CanLII)