This is an off-topic tangent . . . especially if it is about a Foreign National and work permits . . .
. . . but the information posted by @abff08f4813c is likely a good (even if just a partial)
answer:
. . . depending, nonetheless, on just what the circumstances are, including in particular if the matter before the IRB is a claim for refugee protection or a situation in which a Removal Order is being appealed. And also noting that
NOT all work permits give the individual resident status in Canada (work permit issued to certain FNs under a removal order, for example). Leading to . . .
There is no useful answer to how these things "
usually" go in these cases. The range of circumstances and possible outcomes range far too widely.
For the particular work permit application referenced here there is NO implied status pending the application, or to be more precise, there is NO "
maintained status" (IRCC now refers to what it calls "
maintained status" rather than "
implied status").
Beyond that . . .
But, first, a suggestion to lawyer-up. Anyone in circumstances likely to involve an appeal should get assistance from a lawyer
sooner rather than later. In many circumstances the availability, scope, and prospective relief that may be obtained in an appeal can be severely limited depending on what was litigated before the IRB, so a lawyer's help will often be of far more use
BEFORE the IRB hearing rather than later in the appeal process.
So . . . despite being off-topic . . . more fully:
Post Query In More Relevant Forum:
This does not appear to be about cessation. So, this is the wrong thread for this query. Does not appear to even be about citizenship or those who may be eligible to apply for citizenship (PRs meeting the eligibility requirements, which includes PR-refugees). So wrong forum.
There is such a wide variety of circumstances and issues that can be decided by the
IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada), to get information about real experiences in "
similar circumstances" the query should be posted in a part of the forum that is actually about "
similar circumstances," meaning circumstances similar to those involved in your friend's situation . . . such as one of the forums under the heading "
Temporary Entry to Canada" or "
Immigration to Canada" or applicable sub-heading such as "
General - All Canadian Immigration" (which is grouped in the Immigration to Canada forum) . . . whichever forum is about matters involving circumstances/issues similar to those in which your friend is involved.
Probably a good idea to start a new thread with the query (unless in one of the more relevant forums you find a thread that is specifically about the particular circumstances and issues in your friend's situation).
Meanwhile, your query here provides no context, no particular set of circumstances, no indication what the IRB is addressing, so there is no indication of what would be "
similar" circumstances. There is no indication just what this is about, or what division of the IRB this is before even, and that makes a huge difference in what happens, how things work. For example, whether there is even a right of appeal varies and thus depends on the particular circumstances.
That is . . . probably have better luck getting relevant information if you
(1) identify the forum which is more about your friend's situation and post the query there, and
(2) provide some detail as to the circumstances and issues involved
For Accounts of Similar Experiences Even Though Not Personal Experience:
I have no personal experience dealing with any division of the IRB. But as just referenced in my preceding post, for years I at least glanced over the vast majority of decisions involving immigration issues published by the Courts (colour me nerd of the insufferable bore sort), and despite some lapses more recently, I still make an effort to look at most immigration cases . . . albeit for several years now I only read in depth those involving the issues I follow, which again are cessation, misrepresentation, PR obligations and inadmissibility, and citizenship applications -- thus, for example, I do not read in depth the FC decisions reviewing RPD (the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB) decisions rejecting refugee claims.
Additionally I have researched and read scores and scores of published
IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada) decisions, mostly focused on appeals heard by the IRB, especially those IRB hearings involving the appeal of a negative residency obligation decision, be that visa office denials of a PR TD or Removal Orders issued based on a 44(1) Report.
Which makes me aware of how things have gone for scores and scores of people who have run into non-routine immigration decision-making in a fairly broad range of circumstances. That is, despite not having any personal experience, I am acquainted with the experiences of scores and scores of other individuals who have gone before the IRB and who have appealed a negative decision. (Noting, however, that is only a limited subset of immigration matters.)
You and your friend can also read those decisions and become familiar with what many others have experienced, and in doing that focus in particular on those cases in which the circumstances really are similar to your friend's. Caveat: better, however, to obtain the assistance of an experienced immigration lawyer.
Published immigration decisions in any of the courts and the
IRB can be easily accessed at the CanLII website here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/ There are links there to specific venues, including a link to the IRB, where most published IRB decisions can be easily found. The latter can also be found here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/
It is worth noting that the experiences reported in both the FC and IRB decisions are official accounts of actual experiences oriented to the actual issues being decided, so those sources are a far more reliable source, in that they are more accurate and often more relevant, than the personal experiences recounted in anecdotal reports. This is not to dismiss how useful the anecdotal reports of personal experience are, but rather to emphasize how important it is to consider those reports in the context of known rules and laws and how the rules and laws are applied in actual cases as recounted in published decisions.
