PR Renewal - “accompanying spouse” question confusion

[Daisy64]

Hi there. Trying to fill out my PR renewal and am a bit confused in the section regarding residency obligation. I’ve easily met my requirement for residency but I need clarification on: 5.3 Have you been accompanying a Canadian citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, your parent, while you were absent from Canada?

The only reasons I have been out of the country are to go back to the USA to visit my family or to go on a vacation overseas. My husband was with me on one trip to visit family, the other trips to visit family I was solo. We took vacations overseas together.

1) I’m trying to understand if question 5.3 is yes or no . And/or is it referring specifically to work-related trips or any trip, no matter the reason?
2) My gut says check “no” and put “other“ with “visit family” and “vacation“ as the reasons. Just wondering if I am correct in my understanding of this question.

The options are
Your reason for absence must be one of the following options:

A: You have been employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province.

B: You have been accompanying a Canadian citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, your parent.

C: You have been accompanying a PR who is your spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, your parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province.

Other: employment, studying, vacation, etc.

 

[armoured]

Hi there. Trying to fill out my PR renewal and am a bit confused in the section regarding residency obligation. I’ve easily met my requirement for residency but I need clarification on: 5.3 Have you been accompanying a Canadian citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, your parent, while you were absent from Canada?

The only reasons I have been out of the country are to go back to the USA to visit my family or to go on a vacation overseas. My husband was with me on one trip to visit family, the other trips to visit family I was solo. We took vacations overseas together.

2) My gut says check “no” and put “other“ with “visit family” and “vacation“ as the reasons. Just wondering if I am correct in my understanding of this question.

Your gut check is probably correct. Key question: do you meet, comfortably, the residency obligation without counting any of these days with your spouse abroad?

If so, then go with your gut. Those other days might be nice for eligibility but the complexity may make IRCC take far longer to process than if you just say none of these are with the spouse (since you're not claiming/asking for any differential treatment).

 

[Daisy64]

Yes, I meet the RO very comfortably. Thank you for your opinion on this.

 

[Ponga]

Your gut check is probably correct. Key question: do you meet, comfortably, the residency obligation without counting any of these days with your spouse abroad?

If so, then go with your gut. Those other days might be nice for eligibility but the complexity may make IRCC take far longer to process than if you just say none of these are with the spouse (since you're not claiming/asking for any differential treatment).

At the risk of starting a lot of back and forth...I wonder if by answering `No', the OP could be seen as misrepresenting themselves, since they were accompanying on some of those absences from Canada.

The question seems to be pretty clear, but having said that, I would hope that IRCC would not make a big deal out of it, since the R.O. has been met.

Have you been accompanying a Canadian Citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner...

The only truthful answer would be yes.

 

[armoured]

At the risk of starting a lot of back and forth...I wonder if by answering `No', the OP could be seen as misrepresenting themselves, since they were accompanying on some of those absences from Canada.

The question seems to be pretty clear, but having said that, I would hope that IRCC would not make a big deal out of it, since the R.O. has been met.
Have you been accompanying a Canadian Citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner...

The only truthful answer would be yes.

My opinion is a simple no, because the point here is not the facts of whether one accompanies one's spouse or not, but the meaning of misrepresentation.

It is only misrepresentation if it is material. And it cannot be material here because against the interests of the person not claiming a 'benefit'.

That is, stating you were accompanying your spouse makes you eligible for more days, not less. You're not misleading an officer by withholding information that would make them less likely to approve, but more likely.

And at that, a point I think I've made before, I think not worth commenting further.