Canadas RO is ridiculously generous as it is , anymore generous or lack of enforcement , it would be seen as an even bigger farce
Not meet residency obligation, should I renew PR card?
- Thread starter ty05
- Start date
OP says he is in breachof RO as he was unable to travel during COVID-19. Although traveling was allowed through 3rd countries flight bans were in place and flights booked for several months from many Asian countries such as India. There were complete travel bans from countries like Australia and NZ.
Sky rocketing fares, extensive quarantine requirements and risks involved prevented many from meeting RO. Yes agreed Canada is generous but this is about a specific time period and IRCC should have come up with some specific rules for such cases in my opinion.
Sky rocketing fares, extensive quarantine requirements and risks involved prevented many from meeting RO. Yes agreed Canada is generous but this is about a specific time period and IRCC should have come up with some specific rules for such cases in my opinion.
Anything is of course possible. My two cents is that if this was going to happen, it would have already happened quite some time ago. At this point I think people are on their own to make an individual case under H&C.
There was a new public policy on PGWPs just announced. However this was essentially piggy-backing off two previous PGWP public policies and so not really new.
There are already people who have had PR renwals denied due to RO failures that happened during COVID. IMO I don't see IRCC going back on all of this and setting up a public policy now related to RO.
But who knows. Anything is possible.
As long as some of the genuine concerns aren't raised I don't believe there will be even any room for debate. Leave alone the thought of a policy coming into force. Many of the local MP's for Immigration may not be even aware of the hardships faced by new PR's during the covid period. I believe some of the local MP's were involved in encouraging a relaxation of the PGWP.
The extension of PGWP was primarily due to students having difficulty in finding full-time work for enough time to qualify for PR due lockdowns and changes in hiring due to the pandemic. There was also a pause or delay of some of the express entry programs so the wait time to receive PR was also much longer in many cases. Canada is also facing a labour shortage so an extension of PGWP was a benefit for Canada. PRs are in a very different situation. They would be able to delay travel until vaccinations were in place and lockdowns had stopped in Canada. You can’t compare Canada to the very limited flights into NZ and Australia. The situations were very different. There were very limited lockdowns in India but that wouldn’t have prevented people from meeting the 730 days out of 5 years.
Oh, I don't think it was for lack of trying. I think there were lots who contacted their MPs but nothing came of it. Doesn't stop people from trying again.
You are raising the question here, do write to your MP, write letters to the newspapers, hire an airplane to do skyrwriting, whatever. These are in fact "debates."
Likewise, you are asking others here - and I am expressing my honest opinion that it is not going to happen (blanket forgiveness or relaxation due to covid) at this late date (mostly for the reasons mentioned by @scylla). That's debate. Plenty of room for it - we (you and I and others here) just happen to have different opinions on the utility and likelihood.
I do think there will be and in fact already is a fair bit of 'accommodation' being made for those who did not meet RO because of covid. But not so much that everyone will be happy. And can't say what will happen in your case. Good luck.
I agree but people here also express that they feel insecure to travel with an expiring PR card and as someone said on the post makes them feel unsafe. As for the lockdowns in India the info you have isn't quite correct we suffered a major second wave I dont want to go into the details. I have tried booking flights during the lockdowns and it was either full for 3 or more months or at rates we couldn't afford. Covid 19 was a constantly evolving situation with no certain end despite the jab. Whatever relaxation mentioned isn't on paper that could make someone in an adverse situation feel confident enough to fly. If that was the case many wouldn't be advised to wait till they meet their RO. Nobody is asking for a blanket forgiveness for 5 more years atleast the period during which the covid was at its peak should have been taken into account to be applied to people holding active PR's to make them feel welcome. The reason with extension of PGWP was also the pandemic. Wouldn't PR's contribute to the Canadian labour shortage? Instead many are left with options to appeal on H&C with so much uncertainty sadly.
Last edited:
I have no objection to you writing to your MP and telling them this. Or to media, or whatever.
So take here my comments only as my interpretation of why I don't think it will change, and to some degree, why I believe the policy works this way. Likely no-one will ever confirm this in writing.
I think the 'uncertainty', as you put it, is intentional. Intentional in a specific way in that "humanitarian and compassionate relief" is only formally intended to be used for emergency circumstances. Intentional so that only those with no other choice use it, and no-one using it is expected to feel 'confident enough to fly' (but they do because it is an actual emergency).
In practice, they are often more lenient - but it's not a 'right' as in law or reg, only a practice.
If you violate your residency obligation, you are right to be concerned, uncertain, and worried. It is a serious obligation. PR status is meant for those who will ... permanently reside in Canada.
As others have noted: it is already a VERY forgiving residency requirement. If it is to be modified to provide more specific instructions about 'exceptions', including covid-type circumstances, it is FAR MORE likely that it would be made more strict overall (in terms of time required in Canada). Compared to the current situation where small / short deviations from RO compliance are more or less ignored, as long as the PR is actually ... residing in Canada. So - I'm skeptical they will change it, and be careful what you wish for.
As noted repeatedly here, in practice, they are not that strict about the specifics for RO compliance, don't ask for all that much proof about what constitutes H&C, etc., and tend to have a working practice of .... let the PR return to Canada if they arrive at the border, and then let the PR prove they intend to live in Canada by ... living in Canada.
This overall works as more lenient than it seems on paper. Some people are unhappy with it, because ti does have uncertainty, but then there is no policy frawework that would make everyone happy.
That said, there are some aspects of the way they administer such cases that are quite problematic. Those things should be fixed as no benefit to anyone (in my opinion). An example is health insurance/care for those who are in Canada legally but out of complaince and can't get a PR card; this one's difficult to solve as a shared responsibility with the provinces. A worse one (in my opinion) is the question of SIN numbers and SIN number 'dormancy' that in my view is basically illegal and a failure of the federal government's internal coordination.
But again: sure, write your MP.
Thank you for the inputs. Based on what you comment I would like to know
1. If the SIN gets deactivated on the expiry of PR or not meeting RO?
2. Does it make you ineligible for health insurance in Canada?
1. If the SIN gets deactivated on the expiry of PR or not meeting RO?
2. Does it make you ineligible for health insurance in Canada?
Your case has a little to do with Covid and a lot to do with other issues in your life like trying to resettle to another country in your late 40s, having an ill family member that you wish to visit regularly even if you are able to enter Canada without being reported, Covid creating an obstacle for travel for part of the time since you landed in 2018 and the fact that you did a short landing and planned to resettle years after which didn’t leave you a ton of wiggle room for emergencies. The first big obstacle is age and your specific field of work. Getting academic positions and research dollars is already very challenging for those who have done phDs in Canada. Canada doesn’t have a huge amount of universities so getting an academic position is difficult. If you have foreign credentials that aren’t well known in Canada or don’t come to a research institute with grants already or research that has attracted a lot of attention it is hard to get a job. It is hard for most immigrating in their late 40s unless they are being internally transferred from an office outside Canada to a Canadian office. Things like retirement planning need to be a factor if you are starting a new life in your close to 50. There may not even be time to maximize your government pension which isn’t a lot of money. The other factor is your mother. Travel every 3 months to India from Canada will not be possible with most jobs and also comes at great financial cost. If you return to Canada without meeting your RO without being reported your best option is to remain in Canada until you meet your RO without travelling. That will not work for you. At a certain point your will no longer have a valid PR card which will make travel outside Canada much more difficult and if you travel into the US and cross the land border without a valid PR card there is a good chance that you will eventually get flagged or reported.
When it comes to flexibility due to Covid there has be quite a lot of flexibility but there hasn’t been a lockdown or major outbreak in India that prevented you from travelling to Canada in the past year so not sure you can keep using Covid as the reason you gave not returned to Canada. The fact that you landed in 2018 also counts against you because you could have moved in 2018 but chose not to. This comes with a risk. When it comes to PGWP holders that are already working in Canada being providing a bit more flexibility ( they will also argue that they should have been granted more flexibility around extensions if access to PR due to Covid as well), they are already working in Canada so you can’t compare them to PRs especially if they have no history in Canada. For example if RO requirements were eliminated due to Covid for 5 years not all PRs would immediately move back to Canada and start working the next week. On the case if PGWP holders most continued working at their jobs in Canada which was what the government needed to try to deal with the labour shortage.
I think you have some tough choices to make but this has more to do with longterm planning when it comes to your life and career than even residency obligation. Unfortunately you can’t always have everything you want from not meeting your RO but returning to Canada, being still be able to travel frequently if you are able to return to Canada, finding an academic/research position in Canada, considering retirement and whether you’ll be able to retire and retire with some savings if you relocate at this point in your life, whether you can care for your mother if you move to Canada, etc.
1. There is no such thing as 'expiry' of PR. You remain a PR. If you are in Canada and already have a SIN, health insurance, etc., htere are no issues whatsoever.
SINs do not as far as I'm aware get deactivated except for temporary ones issued to foreign workers and a few other cases. There IS a thing that CRA (or the Ministry of Employment, not sure) does which is make a SIN 'dormant' if there is no reported activity for a long period of time, I believe five years or more (they do this mainly to prevent fraud i.e. accessing someone who is not in Canada's benefits). In an immigration context, this comes up mainly for PRs who actually leave Canada for five years or more and then return. Again, this is - it seems - mainly an unfortunate side-effect of a program to reduce fraud. Doesn't apply at all to those who are eg just a year or two out of compliance. (I repeat, I think this is a violation of basic rights and law as not being able to get a SIN can prevent you from working, for something that is NOT in the legislation - but it applies to, actually, a vanishingly small number of cases and those don't seem to have pursued court cases or found other solutions.
2. No. Note that the issue differs by province and is a lot more complicated, with different issues in eg BC and Ontario. Out of compliance itself does not affect existing health insurance (except to the extent the not-in-residence means there's an eligibility period or previous coverage is no longer eligbile due to not having met the provinces' requirements, usually something like 180+ days a year). The issue is - again - one of documentation, some provinces require a valid PR card (BC), others require a relatively recent PR card (Ontario I think), almost all will only accept the original COPR from landing for one year after landing. This means, unfortunately, that someone who is out of compliance and whose card expired some time ago may have difficulty getting coverage (I believe many have got it on a temporary rolling basis until their cards approved, but not an expert).
To me that's a serious issue and it's somethign the feds and provinces need to fix because being out of compliance with the RO is absolutely NOT the same as being 'illegal' or out of status or anything like it; they are legal residents. But the Canada health act is EXTREMELY complex and I'm not going to pretend there are easy fixes - sure, write to your MP/MPP or equivalent about that.
I don't know the history (and don't really wish to), but there is a really important point here.
The 730 days in five years (1825 days) means PRs can reside only 40% of those five years (only ~five months a year!) and still be compliant. [Important note: this STILL does not mean one can do so and qualify for continuous provincial healthcare eligibility and coverage - different requirements.]
That means eg:
-short land and stay outside for three years; OR,
-stay outside for four months a year and still have ~4 months left over for emergency trips and incidental travel (which for many Canadians would be their paid time off work); OR,
-stay outside for two full years AND have a full year for emergency / incidental travel (for example, more than enough time for actual covid restrictions in all but a handful of countries).
Etc.
But notice the OR there. You can't have all of these things, at least without becoming non-compliant. In which case there is SOME chance (far greater than non-zero) of getting H&C accommodation or simple lenience at the border.
That's VERY generous. Objectively.
I can find some things to quibble about that I personally disagree with, things that should specifically be in there, or cases where applying the rule mechanically results in conclusions that I find unfair. That tends to happen with any policy.
But no matter the policy, it will resutl in a framework where the PR must CHOOSE - and choosing means giving some things up, or at minimum bearing hte uncertainty and risk of their CHOICES.
Hi Canuck,
Thank you. I am well aware of my situation. Although covid was one reason you are right that multiple reasons impacted me. The OP on the post stated covid as one of the reasons that lead to a discussion on the need for a policy on this which could have benefitted many.