As others have commented, NO, just being employed by a Canadian employer does
NOT qualify for the
working-abroad-employed-by-Canadian-business credit. There are additional qualifying elements, which among others includes the work be pursuant to a TEMPORARY assignment abroad, thus ordinarily requiring the PR already be employed at a position IN Canada, before being assigned abroad, and the PR have a position IN Canada to return to upon completion of the assignment. Additionally the employment cannot be arranged so as to facilitate living abroad.
OTHERWISE, addressing the prospective availability of H&C relief for a failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation due to the impact of measures taken in response to the worldwide covid-19 outbreak, is a much more complicated question. SOME related relief is likely, for at least SOME of those PRs affected. How much? Under what circumstances? For which PRs? Very difficult to say.
Regarding modern Canadian immigration law and policies, the current situation is unprecedented. So the range of possible responses regarding enforcement of the RO is far too wide to support much if any speculation about how Canada will approach PRs affected by travel restrictions and related difficulties in returning to Canada.
Nonetheless, we can reasonably, safely, anticipate a significant amount of flexibility and accommodation for many PRs affected by the situation. BUT also recognize that it is NOT likely there will be any across-the-board or otherwise wholesale amnesty or forgiveness policy; that is, no definitive rule essentially giving PRs a free pass for RO breaches. This leaves a wide, wide, wide range of possible approaches in between.
Leading to LONGER OBSERVATIONS re RO enforcement in the wake of the global Covid-19 outbreak:
Obviously, you are correct that many others will encounter unanticipated hurdles in meeting their PR Residency Obligation related to the widespread circulation of the Sars-CoV-2 virus, resulting in the Covid-19 pandemic.
As those who are prudent often caution those whose
PLANS involve
cutting-it-close:
STUFF HAPPENS.
Or as the American author John Steinbeck referenced, about the best laid plans of mice and men, borrowing a bit from the British poet Robert Burns, whose poem phrases it rather more lyrically, “
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”
Or as many a callous American or Brit (of whom there tends to be no shortage) may be tempted to put it, rather bluntly, "
that's life."
Thus, prudent planning should ALWAYS recognize and anticipate unforeseen events, and incorporate both a margin sufficient to accommodate contingencies as well as one or more alternative plans.
For you, in particular, you have the fortunate circumstance of time in which to amend your plans and adapt to what is happening, according to your priorities and preferences. Of course what you actually do is for YOU to decide, such as choosing which is YOUR more important priority, as in, for example, whether keeping Canadian PR status is important enough to forgo or at least delay the Antarctica venture.
But sure, there are others, probably a rather large number, for whom their
cutting-it-close window will now close before they can return to Canada (or come to actually settle), including perhaps a rather large number who actually had planned to make the trip to Canada in the coming weeks or months, PRs who had every intention to get to Canada in time to meet their PR Residency Obligation who will be unable to do so.
How will Canadian officials approach this for PRs who breach their RO at least in part due to delays in coming to Canada precipitated by the Covid-19 outbreak?
Predicting the future is a speculative endeavor, suitable for soothsayers and fortunetellers, and worth naught but that.
That noted, there are aspects of this we do know. We know, for example, that a compassionate, humane, and perhaps rather reasonable approach to this would take such circumstances as these into consideration in deciding whether some relief from the PR Residency Obligation should be granted. And, actually, both IRCC and CBSA officials are
REQUIRED to take such things into consideration in making decisions about whether there are H&C reasons for allowing a PR to keep PR status despite the breach of the PR RO.
What that will mean in practical terms, for those PRs who apply for a PR TD or are examined about RO compliance when arriving at a Canadian PoE, takes this back into
predicting-the-future, rife with speculation, territory. That said, it is quite likely safe to anticipate Canadian officials will --
-- take these circumstances into consideration, which as noted they MUST, and
-- quite likely approach the RO breach and H&C assessment allowing more flexibility or leniency, at least relative to the impact of travel restrictions and related difficulties impeding the PR's return to Canada
How much so, though, is the looming question for the scores of PRs possibly affected. We cannot reliably predict, even, if there will be a more or less formal policy implemented regarding this. That is possible. Perhaps likely. But even if so, the particulars are still well beyond what can be reliably predicted.
In the meantime, there are widely varying views about how reasonable, let alone how flexible or lenient, or compassionate and humane, Canadian immigration authorities are in such decision-making, anyway, apart from a profound game-changing event like the current crisis. Most of us here tend to appreciate that the Canadian officials appear to be rather compassionate and humane, overtly if not overly flexible or lenient, very much reasonable, in regards to enforcement of the PR RO (and some here believe there is too much leniency). Even if there never is a formal policy directive regarding RO enforcement in the wake of this pandemic, we can reasonably anticipate a fair degree of accommodation allowed PRs whose return to Canada is delayed due to the outbreak and responsive measures, including travel restrictions.
Overall, however, while there may indeed be a formal policy directive allowing significantly more leniency, it is very likely that generally applicable principles will still be worth heeding, especially the one for-certain element:
the sooner the PR actually returns to Canada, the better; the corollary principle is that the less in breach of the RO the PR is (at time of arrival at a PoE, or on the date a PR TD application is made), the better the PR's chances of keeping PR status.
Absent any formal policy directives, and quite likely even if there are some formal policy directives in this matter, the overriding guideline continues:
BEST to avoid breaching the RO if at all possible. The very best, most favourable H&C case possible, still involves a real RISK of losing PR status. There is no comparison between having H&C reasons explaining a breach versus getting to Canada to stay in time to avoid a breach of the RO.
