For those wondering about the difference between common-law and legally registered marriages when applying for PR, and what factors are considered when analyzing marital relationships:
The British Columbia Court ruled against recognizing a "spousal status" under the Family Law Act (FLA) due to insufficient evidence of continuous cohabitation and marriage-like characteristics in the relationship.
The case Antoniuk v. Beveridge, 2024 BCSC 2034 centered on determining whether the applicant and the respondent were in a marriage-like relationship from September 2017 to January 2020.
The applicant claimed they started cohabiting when she moved to British Columbia with her daughters, followed by the respondent. She argued their relationship met the criteria for continuous cohabitation and marriage-like status. The respondent denied this, stating they did not live together consistently and their interactions were not marriage-like.
The court considered the following key factors of a marriage-like relationship:
1. Cohabitation: Sharing a common home and managing a household together.
2. Emotional Intimacy: Presence of a deep personal connection.
3. Economic Interdependence: Shared financial responsibilities and resources.
4. Social Perception: Recognition by others as being in a marital relationship.
The court found the couple had lived together only briefly, from December 2017 to April 2018, when the respondent's trailer was parked near the applicant's rented home in Halfmoon Bay. During this time, the respondent primarily stayed in his trailer, with limited access to the applicant's home. After April 2018, the respondent moved his trailer to a separate location in Madeira Park, while the applicant and her daughters remained in the house.
Why the Court Dismissed the Claim:
- Lack of Cohabitation: The couple's living arrangements were separate, and even during the brief period of cohabitation, their household routines were independent.
- Absence of Marriage-Like Characteristics: The respondent required permission to access the applicant's home, and their social and financial relationships lacked partnership traits.
- Refusal to Support: The applicant declined to support the respondent's PR application by confirming their status as common-law partners, indicating a lack of mutual commitment.
- Financial Arrangements: The applicant made payments towards the respondent's property mortgage in Madeira Park but referred to them as "rent," not indicating financial interdependence or co-ownership.
The court ruled that the applicant failed to prove continuous cohabitation for two years, as required by the FLA, and did not provide sufficient evidence of the relationship’s marriage-like nature.
Importance for those not registering their marriage!
This case highlights the difference between legally registered marriages and common-law relationships. Without formal recognition, courts require clear evidence of cohabitation, emotional intimacy, financial interdependence, and societal recognition of the relationship. The absence of one or more of these elements can leave partners without the rights afforded to legally married couples.
Oleksandra Melnykova, Immigration and Refugee Consultant in Canada.
Copyright 2024 “SKI Immigration Inc.” All rights reserved.
