Mr. Miar is a national of Philippines and initially arrived in Canada under a work permit as an Industrial Millwright.  His work permit was supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Application (LMIA) made by his employer, Squeaky Parts, Ltd., located in Burk Falls, Ontario, which was obtained by the company's in house counsel.  Mr. Miar's work permit was granted for a temporary period of 3 years and was just recently extended for another 3 years.  Mr. Miar's work permit application was initially filed by a recruitment agency in the Philippines that connected him to Squeeky Parts.

Having worked for Squeaky Parts, Ltd. for over 4 years and realizing that Canada is the place he wishes to settle permanently with his common law spouse, Mr. Miar contacts your office and asks that you help him with his application for permanent residence (PR).  He explained that he has been separated from his common law spouse long enough - having been in Canada for the past 4 years while she remained in the Philippines with their two (2) young children.  In fact, he had planned to return to the Philippines over the Christmas holidays to marry his common law spouse so that she could be included in his application for PR.  You advised Mr. Miar that it wasn't necessary since common law unions are recognized in Canada.

Having done a thorough assessment of his CRS, it was determined that he would be a great candidate to submit an EOI into the EE system.  Sure enough, within a matter of months, Mr. Miar, who is now your client, receives an ITA and you submit his, together with his family's applications for permanent residence within the 60-days.  Shortly thereafter, you get a PFL from the officer.  The PFL reads (attached PFL) ...

Baffled, you contact the client and ask for a meeting to immediately review the PFL.

In the meeting, you asked the client how this could have happened because you were assured by Mr. Miar that he would never lie to you let alone a federal agent!  In fact, he was so honest that he even disclosed his speeding and parking tickets during the initial assessment of his application with your offices.

Mr. Miar explained that he never knew that he had to disclose that he had a common law spouse because of several reasons, as follows:

1. Common law marriages are not recognized in the Philippines and so, he never thought his common law union would be recognized as a "marriage";
2. While he was a bit confused when you had asked for information concerning his family members during the completion of his PR application, he didn't think anything of it because he thought work permit applications were different from PR applications and since, he never had any intentions for his family to join him in Canada while he was on his work permit, he had no reason to bring up he never disclosed that he has common law partner in his previous applications for a work permit;
3. He only disclosed his minor children on his work permit applications because one of the forms explicitly asked for all accompanying/non-accompanying children to be listed; and
4. He never understood that common law unions are recognized in Canada and that a common law partner could be listed as a dependent until he met with you on the day you provided your initial assessment of his eligibility for PR.  He was so excited with this news that he didn't even think to realize that he failed to list her on his previous applications.

Mr. Miar is very apologetic about what has happened and assures you that he never had any intentions to lie on his application. He indicated to you that this was purely a misunderstanding because he never knew that common law unions are recognized in Canada and that he had to list his common law spouse on his applications.  You asked Mr. Miar for a detailed explanation outlining his misunderstanding.

Do a cover letter responding to the procedural fairness letter.

Your response should reference relevant legal authority, including statutory or policy documents and case law. It should make persuasive and well-reasoned arguments  supporting case strategy, and advocating in the client's best interest. 

Your response should be clearly organized, making use of headings, clear sentences and short, effective paragraphs. All issues and claims should be clearly identified and framed effectively, so the officer can easily identify them.