Hurlabrick

Interesting case where older couple were first turned away as the lived in a RV and could not prove common law status but succeeded 2nd time around.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cbs...uple-1.5651128

scilly

That is a fascinating case showing just how much information may be needed to prove common-law status.

It could probably be done without the aid of a lawyer, but the detail is what is needed.

Hurlabrick

Yes, I spotted the original article where they were turned away at the border, this is the successful follow up.

I thought at the time that OK, with no fixed address and an RV lifestyle, there goes your joint mortgage and utility bills options. But they could still have joint bank accounts, joint title of the RV and car, joint names insurance on the car and RV, mutual wills etc. which I would have thought would be plenty. I suspect they simply went into it first time unprepared.

Former Lancastrian

Expecting a Border official just to accept your word that you are common law without documentation to prove it is just sheer stupidity on their part regardless of age or other circumstances. Some interesting comments about if they are claiming they are common law on tax returns etc.

Common-law of convenience. Claim common-law for medical and employer benefits, but file single with the CRA. Which in turn hurts all tax payers, as they are not paying their fair share.

scrubbedexpat091

I would hate to be in a cross border relationship these days.

Too complicated and difficult to spend time together.

It was hard enough when the border was open to normal traffic.

Seems the best bet if the Canadian can fly into the US and go there, the US hasnt restricted travel via air from Canada.

Siouxie

They didn't need a lawyer - they just needed to document their relationship -- in the same way that anyone applying for Spousal PR would do...... it wasn't rocket science.

I thought more concerning was the story underneath and this comment from CBSA

Former Lancastrian

Not concerning at all. Failure to comply with the Act with a report written can lead to an Exclusion Order either at the border or by a member of the IRB. Ignorance is no excuse and TBF many CBSA officers do exert their discretion and give chances to those initially not complying with the Act and counselling them to make sure if they decide to come back and re enter they meet all requirements.

Siouxie

Did you read the article? They thought they had the correct documentation and wished to get their signatures witnessed on a Statutory Declaration of Common Law status... so a 1 year ban seemed a little harsh..

Former Lancastrian

Thought they had the correct documentation is different to having the correct documentation. We all have jobs to do in life and we use our common sense in doing it. Unfortunately we see daily people not using common sense and trying to put themselves in the shoes of the person before them. We all know there are jobsworths in any type of employment. I have lost count on the amount of times I have admitted a person to Canada who at the time of entry was not complying with the law. Using common sense some things can be corrected in a matter of 5 minutes other times a bit longer. Do we have employees who don't use common sense then the answer is Yes. Do some make bad decisions then the answer is Yes. Is the system perfect then the answer is No.
If you went to your local Walmart thinking you had your money/debit card/credit cards in your handbag and you load up your cart with groceries and get to the checkout and discover you don't have what you need to pay for those items do you expect the cashier to allow you to leave the store with those goods? Walmart doesn't enter this into their system that this occurred so no adverse consequences for you but the border isn't Walmart and unless you have a right of entry then you are at the mercy of an officer.
You thought you had what was needed but you don't. Cashier says Sorry I will put them to one side if you like until you can return and pay for them. Is that common sense? You return 30 minutes later pay for the items and that's it.
Unfortunately at the border we don't have that luxury. If a person is non compliant and we decide not to let them in we have to legally issue them paperwork to deny them entry so that they can return. Come back the same/next day everything is in order then admitted. Come back still non compliant after being told what to do then are you taking the piss or not? So do I again let it slide based on the notes in the system or make a decision that this person is taking the piss so here is your 1 year Exclusion Order.

Yes I read the article and from the article Norris said he was never warned of this consequence and was just trying to get the evidence required to reunite with his partner in Canada. How do you know he wasn't warned of the consequences? When he came back the 2nd time was he in compliance with the Act?
Of course it appears harsh but like most people you are believing a story without knowing all of the facts and of course CBSA cannot comment due to Privacy Laws so in this case we will never know the truth.