samanta60 said:
My question is, if I continue working in Canada and apply for Canadian Citizenship in future, then will they consider all the periods that I have worked toward my residency requirement?
It is a bit premature to attempt calculating the precise date you will meet the requirements to become a Canadian citizen.
Assuming Bill C-6 is adopted, the very soonest you will be eligible will be two years after you become a Permanent Resident. That, obviously, is not for awhile, and in the meantime, stuff can happen.
In particular, you will become eligible only after you have
credit for being physically present in Canada a total of 1095 days within the five years preceding the date you apply. At least 730 days of that credit must be based on days physically present after becoming a PR. Up to 365 days of that credit may be based on days physically present in Canada as a
temporary resident, getting one-half day's credit for each day physically present, but again counting only days within the five years preceding the date the application is made.
The work permits are relevant and, actually, important because availability of pre-landing credit toward the physical presence requirement depends on having legal status to be a temporary resident. Thus, it is important to keep records of your work permits
plus records documenting actual dates present in Canada, in the event that you are required to submit evidence proving your status for those periods of time you want credit for being actually present in Canada prior to becoming a PR.
samanta60 said:
1) . . . would the time spent on two jobs be added up or the two job periods have to be continuous with no gap to be considered?
2) Also I have the option to activate my open work permit any time before my new job starts. Does it make a difference to the above question, if I activate my open work permit before the two weeks gap or at the first day of my new job? I mean does it matter what my status is during the gap?
The particular type of work permit is not so important. What is important is that you have, and can prove, legal status for all days you are seeking credit for. As long as you have legal status as a temporary resident, those days will count (half-credit).
As a practical matter, in most cases, IRCC's own records will document your status. Thus, you may not need to submit records to prove your status. But, the burden of proof is on the applicant and under the old law (3/4 rule) many applicants relying on credit for pre-landing time in Canada were required to submit proof of their status in addition to documentation supporting dates present. So best to keep good records and be prepared to prove your status and presence.
Otherwise, as to the
gap, what matters is whether you have status to be in Canada during that time. If yes, if you have status and you are present in Canada, it counts. But, again, you may be required to submit records showing what status you had during that period.
There is no indication that the status in Canada has to be continuous, so the worst impact of a gap is that there would be no credit based on those particular days.
More detailed observations:
As otherwise noted by others, above, for purposes of meeting the citizenship physical presence requirements the current law only credits days actually physically present while a Permanent Resident.
There is no credit for days in Canada pursuant to other status, such as temporary resident status, or protected person status.
Bill C-6 will, quite likely, be adopted and as adopted include added Section 5.(1.001) in the
Citizenship Act, which will state:
(1.001) For the purpose of [the provision specifying the physical presence requirements],
the length of physical presence is calculated in the following manner:
(a) for every day during which the person was physically present in Canada as a temporary resident or protected person under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act before becoming a permanent resident, the person accumulates half of a day of physical presence, up to a maximum of 365 days; and
(b) for every day during which the person has been physically present in Canada since becoming a permanent resident, the person accumulates one day of physical presence.
That is, this section will reinstate credit for pre-landing time in Canada.
Which leads to --
samanta60 said:
Assuming the regulation changes back, then was it like the whole temporary work time should be contentious?
What this means in practical terms, assuming Bill C-6 becomes law, is that in addition to a full day credit, toward the physical presence requirement, for all days in Canada
within the previous five years AND while a PR, the citizenship applicant will also be given a half-day credit, up to a maximum of 365 days credit, for days the applicant was:
-- physically present in Canada
-- as a
temporary resident
-- within the five years preceding the application date
Thus, for example, I would quibble a bit with the statement that "work has nothing to do with it."
scylla said:
Work has nothing to do with it. It's calculated based on physical residency.
I do not disagree with this, as such, with what it means; but I am more particular about the language used. I understand, in this context, that "physical residency" is a succinct way of referring to the requirement being based on
physical presence while a resident, but this glosses over some significant nuances.
The more obvious one is that having a work permit does indeed have something to do with it, something very important: legal status to reside in Canada. Mere presence does not qualify for credit toward the requirement. Presence
with status is required.
Thus, as I already noted for example, be sure to keep records showing the dates you have work status (whether it is an open work permit or not is not so important; having actual status to work in Canada is what matters, as that is proof of status to live in Canada during the period the individual has status to work in Canada).
Another significant nuance which "physical residency" glosses over is that actually credit is now given for all days the applicant was
physically "present", and actual
"residency" is
NOT required.
Practically, of course, an individual will not be able to accumulate a sufficient number of days physically present without actually residing in Canada. Moreover, proof of residency is a big factor in proving actual presence (and, conversely, absence of proof of residency tends to support an inference the individual was not present . . . thus, even though proof of where one was physically residing in Canada is not a technical element of proof necessary to show presence, proof of "residency" is hugely important).
But, a key difference in the law now, and which will also be the case under changes made by Bill C-6, is that days present in Canada apart from those days the applicant maintained residence in Canada still count. Under the older 3/4 rule, the requirement was based on actual
residency, and thus, for example, even days spent in Canada after landing and becoming a PR would
NOT be given credit toward the total number of days in Canada if they were prior to actually establishing in-fact residence in Canada. Thus, under the old law, if CIC or IRCC questioned the applicant's residency, a Citizenship Judge had to determine the actual date the applicant proved in-fact residency was established and only count days in Canada
after that date. This is something which tripped up many, many applicants who had shortfall applications made prior to June 11, 2015.
Additional note:
The added section, Section 5.(1.001) in the
Citizenship Act, refers to days the applicant was present as a "temporary resident." This tends to be used as a formal term and in the past has usually been used in reference to being present with status. Thus, for example, even visitors whose
residency remains outside Canada, were recognized as a
temporary resident while present in Canada, even if quite briefly.
I mention this because overall the
Citizenship Act and IRPA (
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), and law based on these (such as the respective regulations as well as formal Court decisions), tend to use terms like "residency," "residence," and "resident," in various and often not consistent ways, sometimes more technically, sometimes more or less similar to common usage, often dependent on context. So these terms can often lead to confusion or misunderstanding.
