Common Law Marriage in the Canadian Forces - Mega Thread

[PMedMoe]

You don't have a problem with illegal immigration?

Actually, yes I do.  The original topic was about common-law status.  Not immigration.

If I was to argue aspects concerning Preventative Medicine I would get told to STFU and stay in my lanes

Darn right you would.  It's Preventive Medicine. 

 

[J.J]

I've tried a few searches on this and come up empty-handed, so I thought I would ask.  Hopefully this is the right place! 

My boyfriend and I have been living together for over five years.  We live in BC, near the US border.  He is an American citizen, working whatever jobs he can shake up on the US side of the line, and I work in Canada, being a Canadian citizen.  For all intents and purposes, this is a marriage relationship - we have a joint bank account, a joint tenancy agreement for our home, etc.

Will the CF consider him my "common law spouse" and move him along with my kids and I to wherever I am posted?  Or is the fact that he is an American a potential issue?

We plan to get married once I can get the divorce done with my ex-husband. 

Any input you may have, or any experience with this would be appreciated.  Thank you so much!

I actually see a lot of immigration questions and issues in the original post....

 

[Occam]

It is interesting on the dynamics out here some days. If I was to argue aspects concerning Preventative Medicine or Naval traditions, I would get told to STFU and stay in my lanes, but there seems to be several "experts" and "barracks room lawyers: when it comes to immigration issues....

Just thinking out loud here - is it possible that you're more focused on who is making the arguments, and not what the argument is?

I'm curious to hear if you have a logical explanation to the question I posed before - "If checking that the prospective spouse was legally allowed to reside in Canada was such an important requirement, why was it stricken from the revised QR&O?"

As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me... 

 

[cupper]

As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me... 

Just playing devil's advocate  :stirpot: knowing that it wasn't a requirement under the QR&O, but is possible that the question wasn't asked because it was assumed (correctly or incorrectly) by the CO or Admin staff that the spouse was legally present in Canada? Or that they already knew same?

 

[Occam]

Just playing devil's advocate  :stirpot: knowing that it wasn't a requirement under the QR&O, but is possible that the question wasn't asked because it was assumed (correctly or incorrectly) by the CO or Admin staff that the spouse was legally present in Canada? Or that they already knew same?

Sure, it's possible.  The question also might not have been asked because it wasn't on the list of prerequisites in the QR&O, too.  But it used to be...

And I'm afraid that unless someone can explain the reasoning that was going on when that prerequisite was removed from the QR&O, we're probably not going to get very far here.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just thinking out loud here - is it possible that you're more focused on who is making the arguments, and not what the argument is?

I'm curious to hear if you have a logical explanation to the question I posed before - "If checking that the prospective spouse was legally allowed to reside in Canada was such an important requirement, why was it stricken from the revised QR&O?"

As an aside, that's twice that the "barracks room lawyer" term has been tossed out there, without being aimed in a specific direction.  I figure going through the Common Law process twice under the latest version of QR&O 1.075, and not being asked about the nationality of my spouse either time qualifies me to toss an informed opinion out there.  Just on the off chance it was aimed at me... 

I used the term. Was it pointed at you? I have you on ignore. I only saw your post because someone quoted it. It's not always about 'you' and I seldom read anything you have to say. So to calm your fears about it being aimed at you, maybe not.

 

[Pusser]

OK.  I've done something novel.  It's crazy I know, but I've called a friend at JAG on this subject.  The initial response was, "Wow!  Good question.  We'll have to get back to you on that."  So, I'm waiting.  We'll have to see.  Hopefully, we'll be able to put this to bed soon.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Stop imposing common sense on this thread.  Where would barrack room lawyers be if real ones stick their nose in?

 

[Pusser]

Stop imposing common sense on this thread.  Where would barrack room lawyers be if real ones stick their nose in?

I thought my idea was so crazy, it just might work...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK.  I've done something novel.  It's crazy I know, but I've called a friend at JAG on this subject.  The initial response was, "Wow!  Good question.  We'll have to get back to you on that."  So, I'm waiting.  We'll have to see.  Hopefully, we'll be able to put this to bed soon.

Might help if you send him the link for the thread so he can see what's what.

Get back to us when you get an answer and a Mod will open this  :worms: back up, for his answer.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Wilamanjaro]

I imagine that during MOC is where I could start living off base/school and my girlfriend and I could rent a house in the nearby city. Is this correct? If not, when is it possible? What are the procedures?

 

[dangerboy]

As a general rule it is usually not possible to do that until you have finished your trades training and are posted to your first unit.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I imagine that during MOC is where I could start living off base/school and my girlfriend and I could rent a house in the nearby city. Is this correct? If not, when is it possible? What are the procedures?

Just to add something here, if you said what MOC you are going, perhaps there is a staff member from that Training Establishment, or a recently-former student/trainee, who could say "yes they allow/no they don't allow", etc.  Some TEs do, some TEs don't, so its hard to answer your question as you've presented it.

:2c:

 

[dapaterson]

Is she your girlfriend or your common law partner?  It makes a difference in terms of benefits.

 

[RCDtpr]

My info is a few years old but to give you a ballpark figure here.  I left for basic in Jan 2007 and arrived in Petawawa in Oct of that year.  So we were apart roughly 10 months.  Mine was a best case scenario though as I only spent 2 weeks in holding (pat platoon).  The stars sort of aligned for me by not spending much time in holding and then being in a trade where DP1 (moc training) is only another 13 weeks.

If you are in a trade that requires you to live in during your QL3's or DP1 I'd say it's safe to expect at least 10 months apart but probably longer than that.

 

[jeffb]

if you said what MOC you are going,

Looks like he's going to be a Vehicle Tech. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105005/post-1126132.html#msg1126132

 

[ht90]

I did my QL3 in Esquimalt a couple years ago and most of my class were living out-of-base. The only thing you need to do is to send a memo and a request form up your CoC. The worst they can reply is No. In my situation they approved my request even though i had no dependents so I'm sure there won't be a problem in your situation having a wife.. Out of curiosity what trade are you?

 

[armywife2013]

We submitted an application to be recognized as common-law partners in late March to my partner's CO, and found out a month later that, after the application was sent to the JAG, it was rejected on two basis:

(1) Even though he has lived with me for over a year now (slept and consumed his meals at home with me, contributed to the maintenance and upkeep of the house, hosted parties here that his colleagues and boss attended, etc.), the military doesn't recognize it because he is in a "residential program". We however submitted written affirmations from friends and colleagues who attested to having witnessed us living together. We also submitted, as evidence of an existing precedent for this situation, the case of R v Acting Sub-Lieutenant J.J. Rotchford (he was accused of making a false statement in a document when he claimed to be living common-law with his spouse while at the same time paying ration and quarters at RMC, and was found not guilty). The military judge concluded that someone can pay rations and quarters while still live somewhere else.
(2) Which brings me to point 2... We were told that this case is rejected as evidence for us because it was a martial law court case, not civil law.

We are now looking at finding out what we can do to appeal the decision. He will be posted two provinces away in less than 3 weeks so we are running out of time in terms of being able to have this relationship recognized by the CF and have his posting message reflect it. How can we appeal this? Have you ever heard of common law applications being rejected, for reasons other than the applicant was lying????? From what I've seen, there are several court cases where people falsely claimed to be living together - but that isn't the case for us. We've been living together for over a year and presenting ourselves as life partners, and we're both Canadian citizens (so no issues of trying to get together for visa purposes). Has an application that meets those criteria ever been rejected before??

 

[luke_l]

The marital status needs to be changed prior to the COS date on the message, so that is the date you need to worry about... I can almost guarantee that you won't resolve the common law issue in that amount of time.  Want to be reflected as a spouse for the purposes of the posting?  You might have to do it the "old fashioned" way...  March on down the court house, and get a justice of the peace to marry you.  Just check that what I said about the COS date is correct, I'm just going off of memory.

 

[technophile]

If you really want to live up to your username, and want the benefits, I suggest a trip to your local JP and get a marriage certificate.