This tracks to the "DEPENDS" element.
And makes the query from
@mogli relevant. For example, if you already have had some non-routine processing, such as requests for additional information or documentation, and particularly so any RQ-related requests (RQ-lite CIT 0520 or full-blown RQ CIT 0171), that would illuminate things.
For an application made in August 2017 there is no "residency" requirement, as such, just the physical presence requirements. However, residency ties are a huge factor in weighing evidence of physical presence. The more ties and more consistent resident ties the applicant has, the stronger that supports the applicant's account of days present in Canada. And, conversely, of course, either weaker residency ties in Canada OR stronger residency ties abroad (like maintaining a residence in a foreign country, such as in the U.S.), in turn weaken the strength of the presence case.
Typically, in scenarios raising questions about the applicant's account of days present in Canada, there will be RQ-lite (CIT 0520) or full-blown RQ (CIT 0171), and the quantity and QUALITY of the evidence submitted in response will affect how IRCC handles the case.
If at this stage you have NOT been issued either the RQ-lite or full blown RQ, odds are good there is still NO PROBLEM. Webform query, again in
SEPTEMBER (still a bit early for a routine application; better to time such things to actually obtain real information rather than engage in futile busy-work), may illuminate something if you have not learned more or seen progress sooner.
If you have been issued either the RQ-lite or full blown RQ, or you have otherwise have had a non-routine procedure, no need to make a Webform query any time soon. You know what the issue is. You have a presence-case, a NON-routine application which is going to take longer, and in Montreal probably significantly longer depending on how the responsible Citizenship Officer assesses your response (to whatever non-routine requests you have been sent).
The overall significance of home ownership abroad is indirect. Home ownership in Canada, for example, does not prove presence in Canada. So home ownership abroad does not prove presence abroad (or lack of presence in Canada). But it is indeed indirect evidence. It is indeed a significant residency tie. Most people tend to live in the home they own. So, when an applicant still owns a home abroad, naturally a decision-maker might want to see additional evidence to more conclusively show the place the individual actually was during a period of time the individual claims to be staying somewhere other than in the home he or she owns abroad. Other residency-ties factors will thus loom large. For an applicant with a spouse, for example, where the spouse was living and working can be a significant factor, albeit just one more factor among many other potentially relevant factors. Employment history and verification of that, that too looms large. Again, lots and lots of
DEPENDS involved once there are questions, once IRCC is questioning let alone challenging the applicant's account of actual presence.
For now, the big difference is whether or not you have a NON-routine case or still a routine case in which the interviewer had some questions. If just the latter, again wait for the response to the ATIP and if you learn nothing of import from that (which is likely to be how it goes, unless it just happens to be timed so you learn something you would get notice of soon anyway), wait to SEPTEMBER (full year plus a bit since applying) and do the formal webform query . . . and go from there, follow-up to depend on what happens or what you learn in the meantime.
If you have a non-routine case (in particular if you have been issued RQ related requests), assuming you have properly responded there is not much to do but WAIT. You could see a Decision-made and oath date soon . . . or not for a long while . . . or see referral to a Citizenship Judge if the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied with your response.
Edit to Add:
There is some possibility a negative emotive response could affect decision-making. BUT it is NOT LIKELY.
Facts and evidence and assessment of your credibility likely to have far, far more influence.
Fact of pushing back itself, in particular, should have little or no influence.
If, however, the push back came across as evasive, or was done in a manner which made it appear as though you were concealing something, or was in effect a refusal to answer, well sure, obviously that could have a negative impact, ranging from hurting your credibility to resulting in negative inferences (depending on the particular exchange).
Should have been obvious that any information about residency ties was relevant, and potentially of some concern, so it was imprudent to not simply answer the questions truthfully. BUT interviewers, processing agents, and citizenship officers, are undoubtedly well-acquainted with this sort of exchange and NOT likely to give it much weight UNLESS the applicant does indeed appear to be hiding something or otherwise appears to be evasive or deceptive.
Side note: there is a widespread misconception that the applicant's intentions are not relevant, which largely derives from the absence of any intent requirement. Obviously, a person's intentions (motives et al) are relevant, at the very least, to an assessment of the applicant's credibility. But residency related intentions are of course also relevant to strength of the presence case. (There is a higher probability someone who does NOT intend to reside in Canada has not fully disclosed all presence or ties abroad than an applicant who intends to reside in Canada . . . thus inviting reason to question things more extensively.)
Compare to employment history. Employment in Canada is NOT a requirement for citizenship. Not at all. BUT employment history is nonetheless such an important factor the applicant is required to give a full accounting of employment history during the eligibility period. In fact, employment history, despite not being about any particular requirement, is so important that IRCC will decline to process an application in which employment history is not disclosed.
