Regulation 4 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Safety Rules, SOR/2002-207 state {that a} overseas nationwide shall not be thought of a partner, a common-law accomplice or a conjugal accomplice of an individual if the wedding, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the aim of buying any standing or privilege below the Act or (b) shouldn’t be real.
Statistics
From 2012-2017 round 4% of spousal sponsorship functions have been refused as a result of an officer decided that an applicant’s marriage was both not real or that it was primarily motivated by an immigration profit.
A Hasty Marriage
In Nadasapillai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 72, Justice Diner held that the truth that a wedding was entered into after a brief courtship shouldn’t be determinative of a mala fide marriage. He acknowledged:
The Panel criticized the haste primarily based on Ms. Raman’s troubled previous relationship and marriage, and the truth that Ms. Raman was 38 years of age on the time, i.e., getting on in age for a single mom. There are two causes that this can be a weak conclusion.
First, one can simply perceive why Ms. Raman was prepared for the companionship that she clearly defined she had longed for: older {couples} might be fast in deciding to get married (though haste is actually not the unique area of any specific age). Older persons are typically prepared to maneuver extra shortly right into a lifelong dedication, as they know what they need. As Ms. Raman acknowledged in her testimony, “I get older. I’m very outdated now and I don’t know the way lengthy I’ll be capable to stay. … I discovered him an excellent individual. So I took two or three days… to consider it after which determine it.”
Second, if the premise of discovering haste was one steeped in a sure tradition, it’s unfair. Within the context of the Refugee Safety Division, the Courtroom has discovered that the place the Board [RPD] attracts plausibility conclusions about proof with out contemplating the right cultural and socio-political context, this may represent grounds for quashing a choice. The Board, have to be cautious about imposing western or Canadian paradigms on non-western tradition and I acknowledge that each Bains and Bhatia concerned refugee claims, not sponsorship appeals.
My conclusion on the Panel’s “haste” discovering is that it was speculative at finest, or in any other case made with out considering non-western values.
A Marriage That Doesn’t Match Cultural Norms
In Gill v. Canada, 2010 FC 122 (“Gill”) Justice Barnes acknowledged that simply because a wedding doesn’t “match” with cultural norms doesn’t imply it’s malafide. He wrote:
… the Board’s remark that their respective ages and Ms. Gill’s standing as a divorced individual have been inconsistent with prevailing cultural norms in India. …doesn’t imply that marriages that fall barely outdoors of the vary don’t happen. The identical might be mentioned for the Indian cultural view on divorce. Presumably marriages between beforehand single individuals and divorced individuals do happen in India…
In Padda v. Canada, 2018 FC 708, Justice Boswell additionally famous that it’s unreasonable to use cultural norms the place the couple have resided outdoors of their nation of origin for a while.
Beginning of a Youngster
Gill additionally stands for the proposition that the start of a kid creates an evidentiary presumption {that a} marraige is legitimate. The Courtroom acknowledged:
The Board was appropriate in acknowledging that, within the evaluation of the legitimacy of a wedding, nice weight have to be attributed to the start of a kid. The place there is no such thing as a query about paternity, it will not be unreasonable to use an evidentiary presumption in favour of the genuineness of such a wedding. There are a lot of causes for affording nice significance to such an occasion not the least of which is that the events to a fraudulent marriage are unlikely to danger the lifetime duties related to elevating a baby. Such a priority is heightened in a state of affairs like this the place the mother and father are individuals of very modest means.
In its evaluation of this marriage, the Board famous that “robust countervailing proof” could be required to displace the importance of the start of the kid. The issue with the choice is that the Board’s evaluation of that “robust countervailing proof” largely involved trivial, inconclusive or irrelevant issues and ignored appreciable proof which contradicted its conclusion.
..
The Appellant and the Applicant have a baby collectively and I’ve taken appreciable time to contemplate this proof. I’m properly conscious that the implications might be devastating if a pair’s attraction is dismissed once they have introduced youngsters into that relationship. Whereas credible proof of a kid of a relationship is mostly indicia of a real relationship, it’s not determinative of the genuineness of the connection. On this occasion, the start of a kid doesn’t outweigh the quite a few considerations with the proof offered.
In Mutneja v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1624 the Federal Courtroom additional acknowledged that:
Whereas the start of a kid shouldn’t be conclusive proof of the genuineness of a relationship, the IAD was obliged to weigh the truth that the Applicant and Ms. Mutneja have a baby collectively and provides this issue appreciable weight. And but, the Choice doesn’t disclose any evaluation of this issue. The IAD baldly states that “the start of a kid doesn’t outweigh the quite a few considerations with the proof offered.” The failure to elucidate why this essential issue was outweighed by detrimental ones results in the inference this issue was not correctly thought of.
This precept was upheld in Amin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 670.
Subsequent Occasions
There are a lot of Federal Courtroom choices which state that occasions subsequent to the wedding might be indicative of what a wedding’s main goal was. In Sami v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 539, for instance, the Federal Courtroom acknowledged that “there’s appreciable jurisprudence to help the notion that proof of subsequent dedication can signify proof a wedding was real when it was entered into.”
Velocity
In Dwarka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 238, Justice Manson dominated that whereas the pace, or hastiness, of a wedding is usually a detrimental think about assessing genuineness and first goal, that it’s not determinative.
One-Sided Marriages
In Dalumay v. Canada, 2012 FC 1179 the Federal Courtroom acknowledged that:
Within the matter at bar, the Immigration Enchantment Division didn’t explicitly take situation with the proof of the genuineness of the wedding, however concluded that for each spouses (though to a higher extent for the applicant’s husband) the wedding was primarily entered into for the aim of buying standing or privilege below the Act. In different phrases, the IAD considered the wedding (or the connection) as being one-sided. The applicant subscribed to an insurance coverage coverage during which she designated her husband because the beneficiary, she visited her husband a number of occasions in Mexico and paid for all of her bills, she paid for a visit along with her husband and his son, she sends him cash on a month-to-month foundation, she pays his payments, and many others.
…
The applicant submits that the proof supporting the IAD’s detrimental conclusion didn’t meet the required evidentiary take a look at of stability of chances. Even when the credible proof of the genuineness of her marriage (demonstrating optimistic options of a pair, because the applicant places it) was not absolutely weighed within the evaluation, the IAD’s choice turned on the failure of the applicant’s husband to offer adequate proof that he entered into the connection with an intention to discovered, increase, and help a household with the applicant.
The above passages are all helpful reminders in what it’s that officers are on the lookout for once they course of sponsorship functions. Accordingly, individuals getting ready such functions ought to take care to indicate that they’re demonstrating that:
- the couple are dedicated to one another emotionally, financially, and bodily (though in follow not an excessive amount of element is supplied on this final one);
- the couple are unique;
- the connection developed in a pure style ie: immigration wasn’t a priority or a problem;
- that each people within the relationship really feel the identical; and
- that the connection is thought to others.
Age Gaps
In Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 62, Madam Justice Williams held {that a} visa officer having considerations about an age hole is a priority that must be put to the applicant in a procedural equity letter.
Coaching Materials
MarriageIndia
