The Canadian judge changes a rule wherein it is not mandatory for couples to have the same sexual orientation for conjugal sponsorship.
Recently, The Federal Court of Canada witnessed an unusual case, where a gay man and a straight woman who shared a child were not given a conjugal sponsorship.
As per the facts, several years ago, a man known only by his initials A.P, came to Canada and said that he was harassed for his unnamed country of origin due to being gay.
As his claim was right, he received a protected person status and permanent residency in Canada.
After some time, in a third country, A.P met a heterosexual female friend from a University named A.M.
The two of them had intercourse and were blessed with a child. Mutually, the two of them decided to take care of the child without changing their sexual identity.
A.M. was identified as gay, not bisexual. However, this resulted in A.M. failing to return to her home country, and A.M. and A.P’s efforts to move or marry in a third country wasn’t successful.
Therefore, A.P. decided to sponsor the child, and A.M. as A.P.’s conjugal partner, through the family class of Canadian immigration.
A.P’s application was not accepted by a Canadian immigration officer. Further, he took this forward to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), a specialized Canadian administrative tribunal that handles such matters.
The IAD approved to the officer’s denial and said that A.P. could not sponsor her as such.
Considering the other factors, the IAD mentioned that “a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman are not able to meet the sexual component of conjugal partnership,” and based on the following factors concluded that the sexual and personal behaviour of the couple was inconsistent with a conjugal partnership.”
A.P. made an earnest request to the Federal Court of Canada against the I.A.D. and the court was in agreement with A.P. about the officer’s decision being unfair. Later on, this was sent to another officer for re-considering it.
Consequently, Justice Fuhrer noted that, notwithstanding the differing orientation of A.P. and A.M. and supporting the rights of same-sex couples is a holistic framework for determining the existence of a conjugal union; sexual intimacy or the lack thereof was not importantly necessarily a determining factor.
Thus, it was allowed for a ‘mixed-orientation’ couple who have or don’t have any sexual intimacy to form a conjugal union. Accordingly, the Federal Court approved A.P.’s sponsorship application to another officer for redetermination.
This decision taken by the Federal court was fair, bold, and grounded as per the Canadian legal system. However, it raises a lot of questions too.
