Judicial Review: CAI v. Minister of Citizenship

What was the applicant's citizenship at the time of the application?

In Ms. Yang's permanent residency application, what critical information did she initially fail to disclose?

In which year did the applicant and Ms. Yang first express their intention to permanently remain together?

Under which immigration class did the applicant apply for permanent resident status?

What was the date of the immigration officer's decision that is under judicial review?

The judicial review is primarily concerned with challenging:

In which city was the Reasons for Judgement and Judgement issued?

Who presided over the judicial review as indicated in the document?

What is the minimum period of cohabitation required to define a relationship as common-law partnership under Canadian immigration law according to the provided text?

Where must a foreign national cohabit with their sponsor to be considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class?

What immigration status must a foreign national hold in Canada to be eligible to be sponsored as a spouse or common-law partner under the described class?

For a foreign national to be considered in the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class, what type of application must be submitted on their behalf?

Which of the following conditions is NOT explicitly mentioned in the text as a requirement for a foreign national to be considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class?

According to the applicant's argument, when did their relationship with the sponsor fulfill the requirements of a common-law relationship?

According to the Regulations cited, what is the minimum cohabitation period required to define a common-law partnership?

What does the provided text indicate about the definition of 'conjugal relationship' within the Regulations?

In the context of determining a conjugal relationship, the Operating Procedures referenced in the text are derived from which source?

What is the primary significance of the case Siev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) as mentioned in the text?

Which of the following is identified as a criterion for determining a conjugal relationship according to the Operating Procedures (OP 2)?

Under the criteria for conjugal relationships, 'sexual and personal behaviour' primarily encompasses considerations of:

What is the overarching purpose of the criteria listed in OP 2, derived from the Supreme Court's ruling in M. v. H., for assessing conjugal relationships?

Under what condition is a foreign national NOT considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class due to their relationship with the sponsor?

The standard of review applied in this application is described as reasonableness. This is because the central issue is a question of:

The immigration officer denied the applicant's permanent residence application under section 124 of the Regulations. What was the primary reason for this denial?

Which element is identified as a foundational aspect of a conjugal relationship?

Interdependence in a conjugal relationship encompasses which combination of factors?

The central point of contention in this case is whether the sponsor was obligated to declare the applicant as her common-law partner when she applied for permanent residence. According to paragraph 125(1)(d) of the Regulations, this obligation hinges on:

What does the characteristic of 'exclusivity' signify within the context of a conjugal relationship?

The text mentions that there is 'no dispute' regarding a specific fact. What fact is undisputed between the involved parties?

The criterion 'present themselves as a couple' in a conjugal relationship implies:

According to the sponsor's application to sponsor and undertaking, when did her relationship with the applicant purportedly begin?

In the described immigration case, what was identified as a potential gap in the immigration officer's assessment?

The analysis in the text primarily aims to determine if:

What is the significance of the date 'January 27, 2005' mentioned in the text?

Why might young students living together not immediately fulfill the criteria of a conjugal relationship?

For immigration purposes related to common-law sponsorship, at what specific time was the 'mutual commitment to a shared life' deemed particularly relevant?

The text implies that residing together as students differs from a conjugal relationship primarily due to potential differences in:

What was the primary deficiency identified by the court in the immigration officer's assessment of the applicant's common-law partnership?

According to the evidence presented, around what time did the applicant and his sponsor begin to demonstrate the characteristics of a committed common-law partnership?

Which piece of evidence was cited as demonstrating the later development of the common-law partnership, occurring after June 2005?

Why did Justice Rouleau's ruling in Siev become relevant to this judicial review?

What was the immediate outcome of the judicial review for the applicant's permanent residence application?

Beyond the legal arguments, what additional aspect did the court suggest should be considered in the applicant's case?

According to the 'JUDGMENT' section, what were the specific orders issued by the Federal Court?

Who is identified as the presiding Judge who issued the orders and judgment in this case?