Canadian spousal sponsorship allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor eligible spouses or partners for permanent residence. However, being legally married is not, by itself, sufficient. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) must also be satisfied that the relationship meets the requirements of Canadian immigration law. Two issues can have particularly serious consequences in a spousal sponsorship application: whether the relationship is genuine and whether the applicant has made a material misrepresentation.
Genuine Relationships and Spousal Sponsorship
Under section 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), a foreign national is not considered a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner for immigration purposes if the relationship:
- was entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining immigration status or another privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; or
- is not genuine.
These are alternative grounds. Therefore, an officer does not necessarily have to establish both that a marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes and that it is not genuine. A finding under either branch may result in the applicant not being recognized as a spouse or partner for immigration purposes.
When assessing genuineness, immigration officers may examine the circumstances of the relationship and the evidence presented. Interviews may also be used, particularly where IRCC has concerns regarding the relationship. IRCC expressly advises that officers may use document checks and interviews when assessing potentially non-genuine relationships.
Misrepresentation in a Spousal Sponsorship Application
A separate and potentially more serious issue is misrepresentation. Under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), a permanent resident or foreign national may be inadmissible for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act. Misrepresentation is not limited to providing a false document or deliberately making a false statement. Failing to disclose material information can also result in a finding of inadmissibility. For example, applicants must answer questions concerning their immigration history and background accurately. Previous visa refusals, immigration applications, addresses and other requested background information should be carefully reviewed before an application is submitted.
IRCC also emphasizes that applicants are personally responsible for the information contained in their applications, including information submitted by someone acting on their behalf.
The Five-Year Bar- Misrepresentation:
A finding of misrepresentation can have consequences extending far beyond the refusal of the particular spousal sponsorship application. Under section 40(2)(a) of IRPA, inadmissibility for misrepresentation generally continues for five years. In the case of a determination made outside Canada, the five-year period runs from the final determination of inadmissibility. For a determination made in Canada, it runs from the date the removal order is enforced. A foreign national who is inadmissible under section 40 cannot apply for permanent resident status during that period. This five-year misrepresentation bar should not be confused with the separate five-year sponsorship bar applicable to certain people who themselves became permanent residents after being sponsored as a spouse or partner. That separate rule concerns when a former sponsored spouse or partner may sponsor a new spouse or partner.
In Federal Court Decision: Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1204, the Federal Court recently considered both genuineness of marriage and misrepresentation in Singh v. Canada. Mr. Singh, a citizen of India, applied for permanent residence through spousal sponsorship after marrying his sponsor in July 2023. During an IRCC interview, the applicant and his spouse were questioned together and separately. The Officer identified inconsistencies in their answers and also raised concerns that Mr. Singh had failed to disclose previous addresses and two U.S. visa refusals. IRCC ultimately refused the application because the Officer was not satisfied that the marriage was genuine. The Officer also found Mr. Singh inadmissible for misrepresentation and imposed the five-year inadmissibility period because he had failed to disclose addresses in Quebec associated with a refugee claim and two previous U.S. visa refusals.
The genuineness concerns were extensive. Among other things, the couple gave inconsistent answers concerning their first meeting, wedding guests, how often they met before marriage, employment information and aspects of their relationship. The Officer also identified concerns regarding their claimed cohabitation and communications. The Federal Court upheld the Officer’s finding and concluded that the numerous inconsistent answers provided sufficient evidence for the Officer to reasonably determine that the marriage was not genuine.
The Court also upheld the misrepresentation finding. Importantly, this was not simply a situation where the applicant had disclosed a U.S. visa refusal but failed to provide enough detail. The Court noted that Mr. Singh had indicated that he had never been refused admission to another country, meaning there had been no disclosure of the U.S. refusals at all. The Court held that the Officer reasonably concluded that withholding this information was material because it could have affected the administration of IRPA. What this case means for Spousal Sponsorship Applicants: This case demonstrates that a spousal sponsorship application can involve two separate problems. First, inconsistencies in the evidence of the couple may lead IRCC to conclude that the relationship itself is not genuine. Second, inaccurate or incomplete information elsewhere in the application, such as undisclosed addresses, immigration history or previous visa refusals, may independently result in a finding of misrepresentation.
A refusal based only on the genuineness of a relationship and a refusal accompanied by a section 40 misrepresentation finding can therefore have very different consequences. The latter may result in five years of inadmissibility to Canada and prevent a foreign national from applying for permanent resident status during that period.
Applicants should carefully review their immigration history, address history, previous visa applications and refusals, and all other information submitted to IRCC. Consistency between the application, supporting documents and information provided during an interview can be particularly important.
If your Canadian spousal sponsorship application has been refused, you have received a Procedural Fairness Letter, or IRCC has raised concerns regarding the genuineness of your relationship or misrepresentation, obtaining legal advice early may help you understand the allegations, available evidence and potential legal options.
*This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.