I know a lot less about situations involving shared custody of children or people who aren't canadian citizens. I just have assorted scraps of knowledge regarding the common case of a single parent being forced to prove that, yes, they have a child... yes, they are the primary caretaker... and yes, they are in fact separated by the CRA's definition.
Lesson 1: letters from authorities cannot imply familiarity or any kind of positive bias toward you. They will be dismissed as invalid evidence if the CRA thinks these people are "friends".Regarding the reliability of narrators all saying the same things: the logic may be that you're too self-interested and friends/family are too biased, but people on their vetted list of authority figures are subject to punishments from whatever institution they represent, if caught lying. Mysteriously though, a landlord is considered a reputable narrator despite being accountable to no one. I think this is a clue that the CRA cares more about reputation, social power, and repercussions to itself than whether a person is accountable to telling the truth.
Lesson 2: Remember to tell your letter writers to include an official letterhead with phone number and address, a handwritten signature, and the author's full name. Even though they already rejected the letters for another reason, the CRA complained that the letters from community groups lacked those three things. For the record, both of them literally, factually, objectively *did* have them.
Mention the fact that you are a constituent. They will not work for you unless they are your MP, and you are their constituent. Find yours here
My friend then got an immediate response: a consent form to sign, permitting the MP's office to talk to the CRA on their behalf. The MP's office claimed that the typical CRA turnaround is 10-15 business days for these inquiries. After waiting more than 2 weeks, the MP's office replied in both a helpful and unhelpful way...
The unhelpful part: they just reiterated the CRA's criteria for valid evidence (letters from authority figures, excluding community support groups and now 3 rather than 2) and ignored my friend's explanations that the specific documents the CRA asked for are not possible. They asked questions answered by my friend's initial email and seemed not to believe my friend was telling the truth.
The helpful part: the MP's office found a further reason why my friend's benefits were cut. This was useful for understanding possible causes for the situation (someone else's intentional tax fraud or CRA incompetence) and pinning down exactly what an authority figure's letter should say. It was also good to confirm that the CRA is definitely moving the goalposts and/or not being upfront about what's in the way of reinstating benefits. This was confirmation that you need to talk to a live human CRA agent and grill them for the exact, precise, specific pieces of information they are need before they feel okay giving back your benefits. Or even without confirmation, cover all bases for CCB eligibility before they even ask. The CRA can make this godawful process drag on by giving vague, incomplete, and variable reasons for why they need proof, more and more of it.
If you were married but are now separated, the letters have to stress that there is no ex-partner secretly living with you, and you are absolutely not reconciled. Separation is a fragile status that the CRA can question at any time. Your ex can lie and say you are actually seeing each other, or the kid is actually with them some times/all the time. The CRA can potentially rule that you are common-law despite living apart if you share childcare responsibility. If your situation is that your ex is absent, not living with you, not caring for the kid, not contributing to care -- you have to get letter writers to vouch for all these things.
If you're racialized and criminalized, your citizenship status may be challenged. That would require additional documents.
Thing 1: Maybe the key is getting multiple powerful and credible people to confirm *all* eligibility requirements the CRA could ever challenge and demand proof for, preemptively. Marital status, residence, primary caregiver status.It's easy to get caught up worrying about not sounding credible because the only authority figures you can access don't actually know anything about your personal life. Maybe though, all it takes is getting someone more powerful than you to tell the CRA the same thing you've been saying all along, and it doesn't matter if you just met this person and told them what to say...Thing 2: Doubting the word of an authority figure means challenging their reputation, and I am assuming the CRA would rather not do that to someone with actual social power. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the authority figures you ask for letters know you well. It just matters that they have clout and the CRA can't accuse them of lying/dismiss their words like they can for you.
"Separated – you have been living apart from your spouse or common-law partner because of a breakdown in the relationship for a period of at least 90 days and you have not reconciled.Once you have been separated for 90 days (because of a breakdown in the relationship), the effective day of your separation is the date you started living apart."
to be continued