I am posting the following to counter unnecessary concern about qualifying for credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on accompanying a citizen spouse abroad. This credit is routine. It is common. Basically, if a PR and the PR's Canadian citizen spouse have been living in Canada and they move abroad, to live together abroad (are "ordinarily residing" together),
THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM.
Overall: A PR living abroad with the PR's Canadian citizen spouse is allowed credit toward the PR Residency Obligation for those days. That's the rule. That is how it is applied in all but unusual (probably rare) exceptions.
There is NO reason to be nervous about qualifying for the credit so long as the couple is actually cohabiting.
The exceptions to this are not random. They are predictable. They are very few in number. They all involve
egregious, blatant reasons for making an exception.
Below I reference situations in which who-accompanied-whom is questioned; but again, it is very unusual for this question to even arise. The IRPA regulation itself (Regulation 61(4) IRPA Regulations) states:
". . . a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident — who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent — on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen or the other permanent resident."
That is,
each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen counts as a day accompanying the citizen spouse.
That is the rule, the law. No need to question who accompanied whom. No need to ask why the couple is abroad.
See
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-12.html#h-31 for the Regulation
Note that the applicable Operation Manual, ENF 23 "Loss of Permanent Resident Status," Section 7.5, similarly states:
"In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met."
But yes, as the already cited Kreidy v Canada case (see
http://canlii.ca/t/hphj6 2017 CanLII 87454) illustrates, it is POSSIBLE (but very unusual) that in some situations this regulation can be ignored (Kreidy's lawyer might be blamed for failing to cite the Regulation, but this case otherwise evidences the full gamut of reasons for making an exception, from overt misrepresentations to blatantly scheming to circumvent the purpose for granting PR status, including never actually settling in Canada at all) and the decision turn on the who-accompanied-whom question.
This Regulation is also ignored or overlooked in the Khaira v Canada case (
http://canlii.ca/t/gksqq 2014 CanLII 95529) but in this case even if the PR was given credit for the time he was accompanied by his Canadian citizen spouse abroad, he was still way, way short of meeting the PR RO. This individual also never actually settled in Canada for an appreciable period of time (less than four months following landing).
In contrast, the Regulation is addressed in the Parikh v Canada case (
http://canlii.ca/t/gn6sx 2015 CanLII 108889), but here too there are blatant, egregious reasons for making an exception, and this IAD explicitly cites and in a round-about way applies a so-called "mischief rule." Moreover, the PR in this case, and her spouse, were asking for credit for time they allegedly lived together illegally (without legal status to reside) in the U.S. This IAD focused on concluding it could not be said the couple were "ordinarily residing" together.
There are others among the exceptions.
NOT many, not at all. All involving rather blatant reasons for making an exception. Credibility looms large in most. Otherwise, the lack of virtually any significant ties to Canada tends to loom large. In the Khaira case, for example, it appears the couple had been living together abroad for a decade and a half before he even became a PR, and after becoming a PR he spent very little time in Canada, and basically their lives were long settled and centralized in Lebanon.
But this leads to recognizing the significance of the PR's overall history, including history prior to the five years that count in the PR RO calculation.
I DISAGREE with the view that history of time in Canada prior to the five years that count in the PR RO calculation is irrelevant, of no value. (Something can be and often is relevant for reasons apart from what counts in a calculation of days for a residency requirement.)
On the contrary, the fact you were settled in Canada for years, even if many years ago, is an important factor. That demonstrates a real tie to Canada. And another key factor which totally separates your situation from the
EXCEPTIONS is that you were living together in Canada before moving abroad to live together abroad. The fact that you are the one who got the job that motivated the move is
NOT a problem, not at all.
So your life in Canada from 2008 to 2012 matters. It is relevant. It has weight. That time does NOT count toward the PR RO compliance calculation itself, BUT the PR's entire immigration history is almost always taken into consideration if there is any question at all about qualifying for the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse. It is a big deal if the PR never really settled in Canada (the majority of the exception-cases involve a PR who has never actually settled in Canada . . . not all cases are like this, but most).
It is important to keep good records. It is important to document cohabiting. These days IRCC has been issuing multiple-entry PR Travel Documents to PRs in this situation. Not always. Hard to say why some are and some are not. It is usually not a good idea to push obtaining a new PR card unless and until actually returning to live in Canada.
Your situation is very common. IRCC generally has NO PROBLEM with PRs in this situation. As long as the PR is not scamming the Canadian immigration system.
There should be NO reason to worry about those exceptions, the odd cases in which IRCC does have a problem, always for good and obvious reasons.
