{"id":12932,"date":"2025-07-21T10:00:56","date_gmt":"2025-07-21T14:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=12932"},"modified":"2025-06-22T11:51:59","modified_gmt":"2025-06-22T15:51:59","slug":"navigating-marriage-of-convenience-in-canadian-immigration-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/navigating-marriage-of-convenience-in-canadian-immigration-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Navigating “Marriage of Convenience” in Canadian Immigration Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Authored by Amit Vinayak, Barrister & Solicitor, Law Society of Ontario, Member of CILA<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

In the realm of Canadian Immigration Law, the concept of a “Marriage of Convenience” plays a critical role in maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. Such marriages, common-law partnerships, or conjugal partnerships are not recognized for immigration purposes if they are entered into primarily to gain status or privilege under the <\/span>Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)<\/span><\/i> or if they lack genuineness (<\/span>SOR\/2002-227<\/span><\/a>, s. 4(1)). A determination of a marriage of convenience can lead to inadmissibility for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA (<\/span>Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27<\/span><\/a>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Legal Framework<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The legal framework governing marriages of convenience is outlined in subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). This provision establishes a disjunctive test: a foreign national will not be considered a spouse if the marriage was entered into primarily for acquiring any status or privilege under the IRPA, or if it is not genuine (<\/span>SOR\/2002-227<\/span><\/a>, s. 4(1)). Importantly, only one of these conditions needs to be satisfied for the marriage to be deemed a “bad faith” relationship (<\/span>A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 19 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a>, para 41-42). This regulation aims to prevent individuals from exploiting relationships to circumvent immigration laws (A.B. v. Canada, para 42).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Assessment of Primary Purpose and Genuineness<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

When evaluating a marriage under subsection 4(1) IRPR, the “primary purpose” test focuses on the intention of one or both spouses at the time of marriage (<\/span>Grewal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 141631 (CA IRB)<\/span><\/a>, para 10; <\/span>Lawrence v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 369 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a>, para 11). Conversely, the “genuineness” test typically examines the present state of the relationship (<\/span>Trieu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 925 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a>, para 25). Evidence relevant to one test can also inform the other, with some overlap in evidence despite their different temporal focuses (Trieu v. Canada, para 26; Lawrence v. Canada, para 14). For example, post-marriage evidence, such as ongoing commitment or the birth of a child, can demonstrate the primary purpose of the marriage (Lawrence v. Canada, para 11).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Factors for Assessment (Chavez Factors)<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Courts and tribunals often utilize a set of factors, known as the “Chavez factors,” to assess the genuineness of a marriage and whether it was primarily for immigration purposes. These factors include (<\/span>Grewal v Canada<\/span><\/a>, para 11; <\/span>Lin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII 26505 (CA IRB)<\/span><\/a>, para 8):<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n