On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse, would I say no?

It means the person you are sponsoring, be they conjugal partner or spouse.


"Timbits" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"Timbits" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

if you are not residing with your spouse your are his conjugal partner. it is very
well explained int he guide for sponsorship and on the
www.cic.gc.ca web site JP "Timbits"
<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

which question is that?

i cant see it specificly. i can see it ask you if you have ever had a preivious
spouse/commonlaw/conjugal partner.


"Timbits" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Hi Timbits,

I actually had the same question, and I believe you're referring to the form for "Application to Sponsor and Undertaking".

For question #8b....it asks if you have a conjugal partner. This question appears after #8, which asks about your marital status...I could be wrong, but it could be asking that in the case of sponsoring a relative other than a spouse, etc., like a child.

Comments anyone?

Regards
PatC

if i was filling that in i would not answer yes if i had already indicated that i was
either married or in a commonlaw marriage in part a) . however had i been either
never married or divorced or widowed in part a) then i may have a conjugal partner in
part b) maybe its there to trip up the people who have secret mistresses hehe. i
think however if you have indicated in part a) that you are married they would not
expect you to indicate that you also have a conjugal partner.


"PatC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi Timbits,
    > I actually had the same question, and I believe you're referring to the form for
    > "Application to Sponsor and Undertaking".
    > For question #8b....it asks if you have a conjugal partner. This question
    > appears after #8, which asks about your marital status...I could be wrong, but it
    > could be asking that in the case of sponsoring a relative other than a spouse,
    > etc., like a child.
    > Comments anyone?
    > Regards PatC
    > --
    > PatC
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

It's not nearly as complicated as people here seem to think. The first thing you may
wish to consider is that the sponsorship application is the same form for any
applicable family members. It is not exclusively for spouses. Secondly, the question
about a conjugal partner is there because the new immigration law is recognizing
conjugal and commonlaw partners as well as married couples. Therefore the new
sponsorship form includes those types of relationships when asking about the
sponsor's marital status. Before the new law they only recognized spouses and engaged
couples who would be marrying within a year's time. Now there's some effort to
include other couples if they can show that they have been together for a certain
period. It's these couples who they define as either common-law or conjugal. (This is
an especially important issue for same-sex couples who most likely can't be legally
married.) I have also recently filled out this form, with professional legal counsel
to assist. I was also confused for the same reason as you, but my lawyer explained
about the different "categories" of relationships going on. (As if we can read minds,
or worse, legalese!) But when you think of the reason for the question it becomes
clear enough how to answer it. Since you are sponsoring your spouse, you would say no
to part (b). Hope that helps. -B.

"Timbits" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Thanks Brian,

One more question pls ....what if you are sponsoring a conjugal partner?? I know this seems silly, and they are using this form for all kinds of sponsorships, but if you say "no", isn't that info false? lol

I have started filling out this form, and have entered "yes" with a notation that the conjugal partner is also the Principal Applicant. *shrug*

Regards,
PatC

G'day, all! In a recent article, Timbits ([email protected]) said:

    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you have a
    > conjugal partner. What does that mean?
"conjugal" = hump-mate (i.e. SEX).

Hope that helps.

--
Trikky T; Vancouver, B.C. Canada Remove UPPERCASE letters from Email
address to reply.

I believe I saw in the RAIS for the new law that conjugal was included to include
same sex partners.

Since the federal government's definition of spouse and common law partner does
not include same sex, and since CIC has been including same sex partners as HC
cases, they decided to include them as conjugal without actually defining conjugal
in the law.

It inludes people in a "married like" situation.

I suppose a person could answer yes to spouse and yes to conjugal and yes to common
law if they were married, but that is not the intention of the question.

They are simply trying to determine what kind of married like relationship you are
in. Spouse (as recognized by law), common law (as recognized in Common Law) or in
conjugal (as is not recognized by law but still in a spousal like relationship)

--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.

Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
www.svcanada.com

321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________

Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503





"Timbits" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On the application for sponsoring a spouse outside of canada, it asks if you
    > have a conjugal partner. What does that mean? Do they mean someone else besides
    > your spouse, or do they mean your spouse? If I am not residing with my spouse,
    > would I say no?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

At this point I can only suggest to listen carefully to the (good) answers you have
been given. I'm sure you wouldn't want to risk a failed application! Your last
question has already been answered quite clearly.

"PatC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Thanks Brian,
    > One more question pls ....what if you are sponsoring a conjugal partner?? I know
    > this seems silly, and they are using this form for all kinds of sponsorships, but
    > if you say "no", isn't that info false? lol
    > I have started filling out this form, and have entered "yes" with a notation that
    > the conjugal partner is also the Principal Applicant. *shrug*
    > Regards, PatC
    > --
    > PatC
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...
    > I believe I saw in the RAIS for the new law that conjugal was included to include
    > same sex partners.
    > Since the federal government's definition of spouse and common law partner does
    > not include same sex, and since CIC has been including same sex partners as HC
    > cases, they decided to include them as conjugal without actually defining conjugal
    > in the law.

As I understand it:

spouse = a person who is legally married.

common law spouse/partner = persons of opposite OR same sex who are not legally
married AND who have cohabited for at least one year.

conjugal partner = a category apparently designed to meet the concerns of same-sex
couples who are unable to cohabitate for one year due to, for example, anti-gay laws
in various countries (or even just immigration laws). However, "conjugal partner"
would logically seem to include anyone of either sex who is in a committed
relationship of some length (one year?) but who is unable to reside with his/her
partner. Therefore, whether this category can be used in typical
boyfriend/girlfriend situations is yet to be seen.

    > As I understand it:
    > spouse = a person who is legally married.
    > common law spouse/partner = persons of opposite OR same sex who are not legally
    > married AND who have cohabited for at least one year.

technicaly to be considered married uner commonlaw you have to do more than just live
together, you have to live together as a married couple. It's basicaly the government
saying that if two people live together as man and wife for over a certain period of
time (in most countries a year) but do not getlegally married, then we shall consider
them as married under commonlaw (i think it arises from English commonlaw, in fact i
think most of the english consitution is still existant mostly in commonlaw). So as
to wether or not same sex couples would be considered under commonlaw would depend on
wether or not the country would recognise a same sex couple as being able to lvie
together as a married couple in the eyes of the commonlaw. For example i dont think
it works here in the UK i dont think a same sex couple living together as a couple
can claim married persons benefits etc by using commonlaw. I think this is why CIC
has developed it's own specific definitions in the regulations to avoid any cofusion
as commonlaw means different things in different places an indeed doesnt exist in
some places like several US states.

    > conjugal partner = a category apparently designed to meet the concerns of same-sex
    > couples who are unable to cohabitate for one year due to, for example, anti-gay
    > laws in various countries (or even just immigration laws). However, "conjugal
    > partner" would logically seem to include anyone of either sex who is in a committed
    > relationship of some length (one year?) but who is unable to reside with his/her
    > partner. Therefore, whether this category can be used in typical
    > boyfriend/girlfriend situations is yet to be seen.

I think also this exists to help couples who may not wish to get married yet have a
serious reltionship and one of them resides outside Canada. For example my wife is
Canadian and we have been together for years, yet apart from holidays we have not
cohabited because she lives in Canada and i live in the UK and am waiting for a PR
visa to move there. Now had we been for some reason against marriage and not wanted
to get married we would previously have had a problem as the immigration law required
you to be married really. i think this conjugal partner case is tehre to help that
situation where if people have been in a proper bona fide relationship for over a
year then why should they be forced to be married just to emmigrate to Canada to be
with their partner, hence the clause in the regulations that states they must be a
foreign national residing *outside* Canada. i think only really serious realtionships
will be considered, rather than just casual boyfirends and girlfriends as they will
have a harder time proving the relationship over a year and also will be more wary of
entering a sponsorship contract for several years.

Drew

"The Wizzard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > As I understand it:
    > >
    > > spouse = a person who is legally married.
    > >
    > > common law spouse/partner = persons of opposite OR same sex who are not legally
    > > married AND who have cohabited for at least one year.
    > So as to wether or not same sex couples would be considered under commonlaw would
    > depend on wether or not the country would recognise a same sex couple as being
    > able to lvie together as a married couple in the eyes of the commonlaw. For
    > example i dont think it works here in the UK i dont think a same sex couple living
    > together as a couple can claim married persons benefits etc by using commonlaw. I
    > think this is why CIC has developed it's own specific definitions in the
    > regulations to avoid any cofusion as commonlaw means different things in different
    > places an indeed doesnt exist in some places like several US states.

Yes, the definition of "common-law" in the country of origin is not what is important
(indeed, most countries do not view same-sex couples as being capable of entering
into any kind of "marriage-like" relationship..in many, just being gay is a crime),
but rather CIC's definition of common-law, which now does include same-sex couples
who reside together in a committed relationship for at least one year.
    > >
    > > conjugal partner = a category apparently designed to meet the concerns of
    > > same-sex couples who are unable to cohabitate for one year due to, for example,
    > > anti-gay laws in various countries (or even just immigration laws). However,
    > > "conjugal partner" would logically seem to include anyone of either sex who is in
    > > a committed relationship of some length (one year?) but who is unable to reside
    > > with his/her partner. Therefore, whether this category can be used in typical
    > > boyfriend/girlfriend situations is yet to be seen.
    > I think also this exists to help couples who may not wish to get married yet have a
    > serious reltionship and one of them resides outside Canada. For example my wife is
    > Canadian and we have been together for years, yet apart from holidays we have not
    > cohabited because she lives in Canada and i live in the UK and am waiting for a PR
    > visa to move there. Now had we been for some reason against marriage and not wanted
    > to get married we would previously have had a problem as the immigration law
    > required you to be married really. i think this conjugal partner case is tehre to
    > help that situation where if people have been in a proper bona fide relationship
    > for over a year then why should they be forced to be married just to emmigrate to
    > Canada to be with their partner, hence the clause in the regulations that states
    > they must be a foreign national residing *outside* Canada. i think only really
    > serious realtionships will be considered, rather than just casual boyfirends and
    > girlfriends as they will have a harder time proving the relationship over a year
    > and also will be more wary of entering a sponsorship contract for several years.

The category of "conjugal partner" was devised primarily for same-sex couples who are
UNABLE to live together for social/political reasons. The situation you describe
(husband & wife) was always provided for in immigration regulations. What I'm saying
is that it is yet to be seen whether the category can be used to replace the
traditional, opposite-sex, fiance(e) category. Of course, the important point under
the new law would not be that they are planning to get married, but rather that they
already have a marriage-like (i.e. sexual, etc.) relationship and are prevented from
living together because (for example) they live in different countries. Couples who
are planning to marry but who are not in a conjugal (sexual) relationship are not
included in the new law...they must actually marry to be eligible for PR status.