OVERALL:
So far it appears UNLIKELY there will be any change made to the PR Residency Obligation itself.
BUT for PRs asserting there are H&C reasons, pursuant to which they should be allowed to keep PR status despite failing to comply with the RO, obviously the impact of covid-19 is a factor which will be taken into consideration. If it is relevant, and to the extent it is relevant.
Overall, subject to all the vagaries which can affect the individual case, it seems likely, maybe even quite likely, that PRs who fall short of RO compliance by a margin reasonably related to the impact of covid-19 will have less risk of losing PR status. That is, it is likely there will be some leniency derived from consideration of the impact this pandemic has in the INDIVIDUAL case.
Some Longer Explanatory Observations:
For PRs affected by events related to the covid-19 pandemic, we do
NOT KNOW to what extent Canada might implement any change in policies or practices which will offer some additional relief from the PR Residency Obligation, beyond that already inherent in current policies and practices. IF ANY.
DEPENDING on what happens in the coming months, recognizing we still do NOT KNOW how the rest of this year will unfold or what the full impact of this pandemic will be . . .
. . . but assuming travel restrictions are largely lifted and activity in general returns to some semblance of pre-covid normalcy within the next several months, by fall say . . .
. . . THEN it seems LIKELY that there will NOT be any modification of the Residency Obligation itself but rather the Canadian government will take into account, in the individual case,
on a case-by-case basis, whether the particular PR should be allowed to keep PR status despite a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation, and make this determination taking into account circumstances related to the impact of the covid-19 crisis IN COMBINATION with any other H&C reasons which might weigh in favour of the individual PR being allowed to keep PR status . . . again,
DESPITE having failed to comply with the rather generous and flexible Residency Obligation.
Which is actually what the current law REQUIRES.
Thus, for any PR whose compliance with the RO may be affected by circumstances related to covid-19, the PR RO itself allows the PR a lot of flexibility which should accommodate temporary delays in returning to Canada . . . PRs are allowed to be outside Canada for up to three years in five. Beyond that, consistent with the applicable law, current policy and practice requires officials to take into consideration many factors which may justify the PR keeping PR status despite failing to meet the RO, and of course this will (must) include consideration of covid-19 related circumstances.
How the latter will influence the decision-making will quite likely DEPEND on the individual PR's situation. Too many variables, way, way too many variables, to attempt enumerating even a sample of how this or that particular circumstance might affect whether a specific PR is allowed to keep PR status despite failing to comply with the RO.
That said, some of the usual factors will obviously continue to have significant influence:
-- Ratio of days in Canada to number of days outside Canada, or as described another way, the extent to which the PR falls short of being in compliance
-- Extent of residential ties in Canada
-- And, in respect to accommodating the impact of covid-19 itself, how soon the PR returned to Canada once travel restrictions are lifted
But of course there are many, many other factors which will influence how it goes in the individual case. It is less certain, but my sense is that whether or not the PR is a relatively new immigrant (less than or not much more than five years since becoming a PR), can be a significant factor. For those who have been a PR considerably longer than five years, being outside Canada more than three of the previous five years tends to emphasize they have not PERMANENTLY settled in Canada, and thus are probably more likely to be seen as LESS deserving of keeping PR status. In a similar context, my sense is that the PR who was living abroad before the covid-19 situation developed will face a higher RISK of not being allowed relief for a failure to comply with the RO despite claims the covid-19 situation delayed his or her return to Canada.
Some Further Observations:
Remember, changing policies and practices is one thing, and the government has quite wide latitude to do this. AS LONG AS the changes are consistent with the applicable law.
Changing the law is an entirely different matter. Changing the law to accommodate particular events or circumstances is unusual. Changing the law governing the PR RO is NOT likely. So any change in policy or practice will need to be consistent with the current law.
It warrants some emphasis that the law, rules, policies, and practices already in place, in regards to the obligations of
Permanent Residents to live in Canada (the meaning of the terms, "Permanent Resident," warrant emphasis: having PR status is about being a RESIDENT in Canada, PERMANENTLY), are structured to accommodate a very wide range of possible human experiences AND also allow for some additional exceptions in extraordinary circumstances. Thus, it is highly likely that rather than implement any formal modification of policy or practices, the Canadian government will continue to apply the current law, rules, policies, and practices, but do so in recognition of the impact this year's events have had in the individual case.
In regards to which it warrants a reminder that the foremost factor is that the PR RO itself allows PRs a great deal of individual flexibility in how each adapts to all sorts of
stuff-happens circumstances which might interfere with their following through in settling PERMANENTLY in Canada, allowing PRs to be outside Canada much longer than they are actually IN Canada. Allowing up to three years absence during the first five years, and even after that allowing PRs to keep status so long as they have been present in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years.
Beyond that, the current law, rules, policies, and practices will allow a PR to keep PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the very liberal, flexible two-in-five year rule, if there are EXTRAORDINARY circumstances which, in effect, justify allowing the PR to keep PR status. The impact of covid-19 will almost certainly be a significant factor considered. This will most likely be the relief valve which will allow many PRs a modest, potentially significantly margin in which their breach of the RO will not result in the loss of PR status.
Goodday,
I am a PR of Canada and currently in possession of a PR travel card expiring in March 2022. Based on my personal records I will need to be in Canada by the middle of June 2020 in order to accumulate sufficient residency days to renew my PR travel card in 2022. I am currently living abroad for work.
The country I am in has closed its borders to combat Covid-19 since March this year. I am concerned that the travel ban and scarcity of affordable flights will affect my ability to travel back to Canada and serve my time in order to maintain my residency. As a PR holder I am not prevented from entering Canada. My initial plan was to travel to Canada in April this year, which would have allowed me to serve my residency requirement with weeks to spare in the event I need to travel outside Canada for personal reasons before renewal is due in 2022.
I do not want to run the risk of losing my residency in Canada but I am afraid I cant travel until the travel ban is lifted where I am. I am also concerned that I have lost any 'spare days' that would have allowed me some travel leeway before the PR card expires in 2022. What are my options?
Thank you for your time and stay safe everyone.
