Lets say if some one is not breaching RO but still there are 10 days in hand from the date of his first entry. Is still there's chance to face any issue on the Pearson Airport ? Especially when the person is with a family and with lots of luggage showing the seriousness of setteling permanently in Canada !
I largely concur with both
@canuck78 and
@Buletruck even though their respective observations may appear to clash a bit.
That said, I am not clear about the scenario. It may be worth remembering that until the third year anniversary of the date a PR landed it is simply NOT possible to breach the PR Residency Obligation. After the third years anniversary, up to the fifth year anniversary, the simplest approach is remembering that a total absence of more than 1095 days, since landing, constitutes a breach (not possible to be absent a total of more than 1095 days until three years, that is 1095 days, has passed since landing).
So a PR arriving at the PoE short of the third year anniversary has NO worries at all about being reported. After that, what matters is how much time the PR has been abroad.
In contrast, a PR who arrives three years and a day after the PR was last in Canada, or more, is obviously in breach of the PR RO. There is no scenario in which an absence that long does not constitute a breach.
Otherwise,
cutting-it-close can be and usually is risky. To be frank,
cutting-it-close tends to be a lot more risky for practical reasons. Historically this and other forums are rife with tales of woe told by those who were
cutting-it-close and ran into practical problems, ranging from a seriously ill family member to an unexpected need to stay with a job abroad longer, from losing their PR card to flight delays, or as
@canuck78 alluded, a compelling need to go abroad for an extended period of time arises after arrival, within the two years after arrival, so that upon next returning to Canada the PR is in breach.
On the other hand, most reports and other indicators still suggest that PoE officers are NOT aggressively strict about the PR RO. Those who are more or less obviously in breach are at high risk, but it is NOT as if CBSA or IRCC are making an effort to go after those
cutting-it-close who otherwise appear to be settling in Canada. But of course the longer it has been since the last time the PR was in Canada, the greater the likelihood a border officer will take note and make relevant inquiry. How it goes in practice is contingent on many individual factors.
Of course many game the system. More than a few do so successfully. More than a few
crash and burn. How badly it goes, when it does not go well, that depends. Worst case scenario is that deportation is delayed while the former PR has a sojourn in government provided housing, the rather secure sort (where there are bars on the windows if there are windows).
It is worth remembering that ATIP requests only generate what is in the individual's particular records with a particular agency. They do not reveal what additional information that agency could access or otherwise obtain. In this respect, what a CBSA officer might be able to more or less immediately pull up on the computer is one thing. If an individual is suspected of engaging in fraud, what can be subsequently obtained through a formal and thorough investigation is quite another.
Things have changed a great deal in the last six to ten years. Investigatory methods and sources are not only confidential, they are strictly so. Slipping into Canada without being reported, despite being in breach of the PR RO, is not so difficult as pilfering the vault in a secure bank. Nonetheless,
NOT recommended. As previously noted, best approach is typically being straight-up honest when answering questions. If it has been three years plus since the last time the PR was in Canada, the PR needs a good H&C story (a true H&C story), with a few exceptions.
Moreover, CBSA officers can discern a lot more about a traveler from a fairly brief interview than many apprehend. With whatever technological enhancements have been implemented in the last decade largely about making it easier for them to document their suspicions when they are well founded. After all, the main change has been to dramatically elevate PR RO enforcement generally, which began under the Harper government, meaning that unlike years ago both CBSA and IRCC are now looking more for both indications of PR RO breaches AND even more so, indicators of fraud.
MORE RE CUTTING-IT-CLOSE:
There is a tendency to underestimate how quickly
cutting-it-close will slip into an obvious and very substantial breach. To be
cutting-it-close means the PR has been absent most of the time, usually by a lot (since the typical
cutting-it-close scenario involves lengthy recent absences). Adding an additional thirty or sixty day delay in returning to Canada does not seem like a lot in itself. And it isn't. BUT when that means it has been well over 1100 let alone 1140 or so days within the previous four years or so, that tends to loom awfully obvious. Too obvious for CBSA to easily ignore. PRs clearly intending to be settled in Canada, not too deeply in breach, with honest reasons explaining their difficulty in coming to settle sooner, still have good odds even if the reasons are not typical H&C reasons. BUT the more the breach, the greater the risk. And, again, once in breach those days abroad tend to go by quickly and they tend to make the breach all too obvious.
