Marshall v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 356 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Material Cohabitation Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Tonia Yoland Marshall’s PR application under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class. The officer was not satisfied that she had been cohabiting with her Canadian sponsor as claimed. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to consider important school evidence supporting the applicant’s residence in the same city as the sponsor.

Key Principle

Where an immigration officer determines whether a claimed common-law relationship involves genuine cohabitation, all material evidence bearing on the applicant’s residence must be considered. A failure to acknowledge important evidence capable of supporting cohabitation may justify an inference that the evidence was misapprehended and render the decision unreasonable.

Background

The applicant alleged that she and the sponsor had lived together in Brampton since September 2020. The officer relied on differing addresses appearing in tax returns and hospital records, the timing of their joint bank account, and the absence of certain tenancy and financial documents to conclude that cohabitation was not established.

Court Findings

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The officer did not make an adverse credibility finding but instead concluded that the objective documentation was insufficient to establish cohabitation. The applicant therefore was not entitled to an additional fairness letter or oral interview on that basis.

• Minor Factual Errors Were Not Material

The officer referred to an H&C judicial review as an appeal, did not discuss the applicant’s family-violence TRP, and slightly misstated when the joint bank account was opened. The Court found that none of these matters materially affected the reasoning.

• Child’s School Record Supported Brampton Residence

The record showed that the applicant’s child attended school in Brampton, where the sponsor lived. Although the school record post-dated the alleged commencement of cohabitation, it provided relevant evidence that the applicant may have been residing in Brampton.

• School Evidence Was Material to Cohabitation

The Court found the school record sufficiently important that the officer was required to acknowledge it. It directly related to the central factual dispute about where the applicant was living.

• Failure to Consider Material Evidence Supported an Adverse Inference

Where important evidence is not acknowledged, a reviewing court may infer that the decision-maker failed to reasonably consider it. The importance of the school record strengthened that inference in this case.

• Decision Lacked Transparency and Justification

Considering the evidence as a whole, the omission prevented the Court from being satisfied that the cohabitation evidence had been properly assessed. The decision therefore lacked the required transparency and justification.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the sponsorship application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

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