IRCC Is Refusing More Inland Spousal/Common-law Open Work Permits for Lack of Proof of Residence in Canada: What Applicants Need to Know
Over the past several months, immigration practitioners across Canada have observed a noticeable increase in refusals of inland spousal open work permit applications submitted under the public policy for spouses and partners being sponsored for permanent residence in Canada.
In many of these cases, applicants have already submitted:
A complete inland spousal sponsorship application;
An Acknowledgement of Receipt (AOR);
Evidence of a genuine relationship; and
A valid application for an open work permit.
Yet despite meeting what many applicants believe are the core eligibility requirements, IRCC officers have increasingly refused applications on the basis that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the applicant was residing in Canada with their sponsor.
For many families, the consequences are severe. A refused work permit extension may result in the loss of work authorization, loss of income, and potential loss of temporary resident status.
The troubling aspect of this trend is that the requirement most commonly cited in these refusals does not appear in the official document checklist or application guide used by applicants.
The Requirement Hidden in the Program Delivery Instructions
The authority for these open work permits comes from IRCC's temporary public policy for sponsored spouses and partners.
The policy states that, at the time of application, the applicant must be residing at the same residential address in Canada as the sponsor. This requirement has existed for several years and is not new.
However, many applicants are unaware of this requirement because it is not prominently referenced in the application package itself.
The official page for sponsored spouses applying for an open work permit states that applicants must be living in Canada with their sponsor and have received an AOR on their permanent residence application.
Despite this, the document checklist does not specifically request:
Joint leases;
Utility bills;
Joint bank statements;
Government correspondence showing a shared address; or
Other evidence of cohabitation.
As a result, many applicants assume that proving the relationship and providing the AOR is sufficient.
What Officers Are Now Looking For
Based on recent refusal decisions reviewed by practitioners, officers appear to be increasingly requesting or expecting evidence demonstrating actual residence in Canada with the sponsor.
Examples of evidence that may help include:
Joint lease agreements;
Mortgage documents;
Utility bills;
Driver's licences showing the same address;
Provincial health cards;
Joint bank statements;
Insurance policies;
Canada Revenue Agency correspondence;
Employer records showing Canadian residence;
Affidavits explaining living arrangements; and
Mail addressed to both parties at the same location.
The concern appears to be less about the genuineness of the relationship and more about proving that the applicant is physically residing in Canada as required by the public policy.
Why These Refusals Matter
For many inland sponsorship applicants, the spousal open work permit is not simply a convenience—it is the mechanism that allows them to maintain employment while waiting for permanent residence processing.
A refusal can create several problems:
Loss of Employment
Where the applicant was extending an existing work permit, a refusal may immediately end their authorization to work in Canada.
Loss of Status
Depending on timing and circumstances, the applicant may also lose temporary resident status and need to pursue restoration within 90 days.
Financial Hardship
Many families rely on two incomes to meet housing, childcare, and living expenses. A refusal can create significant economic hardship.
Processing Delays
Applicants often need to prepare a new application with additional evidence, resulting in further delays and additional government fees.
Is This Fair?
From a legal perspective, the answer is complicated.
The Argument That IRCC Is Acting Reasonably
IRCC would likely argue that officers are simply enforcing the requirements established by the public policy.
The public policy clearly requires applicants to be residing in Canada with their sponsor. If an officer is not satisfied that this requirement has been met, the officer has legal authority to refuse the application.
Administrative law generally allows decision-makers to require evidence that applicants meet all statutory and policy requirements.
The Argument That the Process Is Unfair
On the other hand, there is a strong procedural fairness concern.
Applicants are expected to submit the documents requested in the official application package. When a critical eligibility requirement is not clearly reflected in the document checklist, applicants may reasonably assume that no additional evidence is required.
A fundamental principle of administrative fairness is that applicants should know what evidence is necessary to establish eligibility.
When a requirement is effectively buried within program delivery instructions or policy documents but not reflected in the actual application checklist, refusals may appear inconsistent with the principles of transparency and predictability that should guide administrative decision-making.
In practical terms, many applicants are being refused not because they fail the requirement, but because they were never clearly instructed to prove it.
Could These Refusals Be Challenged?
Potentially, yes.
Depending on the wording of the refusal letter and the evidence submitted, some refusals may raise issues relating to:
Reasonableness of the decision;
Failure to consider evidence already on file;
Procedural fairness; and
Transparency of IRCC's application process.
Each case would need to be assessed individually, and not every refusal would justify further action.
Practical Recommendations for Applicants
If you are applying for an inland spousal open work permit in 2026, do not rely solely on the document checklist.
Consider proactively submitting evidence demonstrating that:
You are physically residing in Canada;
You reside with your sponsor; and
The shared residence is ongoing and genuine.
Even if IRCC does not specifically request these documents, including them may significantly reduce the risk of refusal.
Conclusion
The recent increase in refusals of inland spousal open work permits for lack of proof of residence appears to reflect a shift in enforcement rather than a change in law.
The requirement to reside in Canada with the sponsor has always existed. However, officers now appear to be scrutinizing this requirement more closely than in previous years.
While IRCC is entitled to verify eligibility requirements, there is a legitimate question as to whether applicants are being given adequate notice of the evidence expected of them when the official application materials do not clearly request proof of cohabitation.
Until IRCC updates its checklists and application guides, applicants would be wise to assume that proof of residence in Canada is no longer optional, it is essential.
Legal Opinion: Not Legal Advice
I believe there is a legitimate fairness concern here. IRCC is entitled to enforce the public policy exactly as written, and the requirement to reside with the sponsor in Canada is expressly stated in the policy and related guidance. Therefore, refusals solely because the requirement exists would likely be legally defensible.
However, administrative decision-making should be transparent and predictable. When a requirement is material to eligibility and failure to prove it results in refusal, there is a strong argument that the application guide and document checklist should expressly instruct applicants to provide evidence of cohabitation and residence. The current framework creates a situation where applicants who carefully follow the checklist may still be refused for failing to provide documents they were never specifically asked to submit.
In my view, the better administrative practice would be for IRCC to update the checklist to include a dedicated section titled "Evidence of Residence in Canada with Sponsor," similar to the evidentiary requirements used in sponsorship applications themselves. That would reduce refusals, improve consistency, and better align with principles of procedural fairness while still allowing officers to verify eligibility.
About the Author: Lauren Shannan is a Senior Immigration Consultant with 12 years of experience helping foreign nationals navigate their journey in Canada. With her extensive knowledge of immigration processes and policies, Lauren provides valuable insights to those looking to make Canada their new home.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized advice, please consult with a licensed immigration professional.