physical presence requirement for citizenship - important

[speeditx]

Dear experts please guide if anyone has knowledge on this or point in the right direction.

As per the CIC website one can count time spent outside Canada toward the physical presence requirement for citizenship if he or she is a permanent resident employed in or with either the 1. Canadian Armed Forces, 2. federal public administration or 3. the public service of a province or territory.

The cic only mentions that this can't be a Locally engaged person, but doesn't specify anything on exact type/nature of deployment. What if person is on leave during deployment, etc., I wanted to get to the official rule on this,

does anyone know where I could find the exact rule / regulation on this?

 

[Bs65]

So one thing you missed from your post would be deployment from where, what job ?

 

[speeditx]

So one thing you missed from your post would be deployment from where, what job ?

No I didn't - I mentioned a job with either 1. Canadian Armed Forces, 2. federal public administration or 3. the public service of a province or territory for oversees deployment (obviously from Canada). I wanted to know if there is any rule or regulation (weblink/pdf/manual) somewhere that sheds light on this requirement.

 

[Bs65]

No idea where you can find a better definition but my interpretation would be by deployment just means that someone was employed in any one of those categories in Canada but has been assigned to a post outside of the country. So for example a military deploy to Afghanistan, an embassy deployment to a country and so on so basically on official Canadian Government or armed forces business.

The start point though always Canada much same as being assigned by a Canadian company temporarily outside of Canada counting towards residency obligation, although in that case would not count towards citizenship.

Not sure what you mean by on leave given even people deployed with maybe exception armed forces would take vacation whilst on a deployment , but they are still deployed outside of the country

Note there is a special provision for armed forces

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen/eligibility/canadian-armed-forces.html

 

[dpenabill]

No I didn't - I mentioned a job with either 1. Canadian Armed Forces, 2. federal public administration or 3. the public service of a province or territory for oversees deployment (obviously from Canada). I wanted to know if there is any rule or regulation (weblink/pdf/manual) somewhere that sheds light on this requirement.

For the statutory provision itself, which is subsection 5(1.02) of the Citizenship Act, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont

For what information the applicant provides, see CIT 0177 which is the "RESIDENCE OUTSIDE CANADA" form "For Adult Citizenship Applicants Declaring Residence Outside Canada As A Crown Servant or With a Crown Servant Family Member" The information requested illuminates some details as to who qualifies for the credit.

There is a link to CIT 0177 (pdf) in the pertinent PDI (Program Delivery Instruction) "Calculating residence/physical presence for certain family members of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living abroad" which is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/grant/residence/calculate-physical-presence/calculating-residence-physical-presence-certain-family-members-canadian-citizen-permanent-resident-living-abroad.html

The other PDI which is pertinent is "How residence/physical presence is calculated" which is here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/grant/residence/calculate-physical-presence.html . . . scroll down to heading "Time residing outside Canada as a permanent resident employed as a Crown servant can be counted as physical presence" There is also a link to CIT 0177 here.

These PDIs do not offer much more detail than what the statutory provision itself states, in regards to who qualifies for credit toward the citizenship physical presence requirement based on time residing abroad as a Crown Servant. The first offers quite a bit more detail in regards to the criteria and additional factors governing who qualifies for credit based on being a family member accompanying the Crown Servant, which is mostly about establishing the qualifying relationship with the Crown Servant.

This makes sense. Who is a Crown Servant cannot be answered in the abstract. It depends on, as @Bs65 put it, "what job?"

So, frankly, your query is at best overly vague, since a key element is what job for what employer, let alone which of the categories of Crown Servant the query about. That is, as posed by @Bs65, "one thing you missed from your post would be deployment from where, what job?"

And no, referring to all three general categories does not help.

And even identifying a particular employer is not much help either, since it is the particular employment that must qualify.

And again, otherwise who qualifies as a Crown Servant for purposes of this credit cannot be answered in the abstract.

There is an illustration of this in the context of who is a citizen by descent and the second generation born abroad rule, in regards to a similar "exception" for descendants of a parent who in turn was born abroad to a parent (the grandparent) residing abroad as a Crown Servant at the time of the parent's birth. See the discussion explaining the directed verdict in favour of the grandchild's claim to citizenship in Fisher-Tennant v. Canada, 2018 FC 151, http://canlii.ca/t/hqdd6 This case illustrates how particular the determination is, meaning how much the specific details matter.

The PDIs do clarify that absences from the country where the Crown Servant is deployed do NOT count toward the physical presence requirement, which is reflected in CIT 0177 where travel history is to be reported (Item 2. in Section B in CIT 0177).

That may be relevant to this aspect of your query:

What if person is on leave during deployment, etc., I wanted to get to the official rule on this,

I am not sure there is an "official" rule regarding this, that is other than subsection 5(1.02) in the Citizenship Act.

Apart from how widely individual facts and circumstances can vary, it appears that generally the PR only gets credit for time residing outside Canada when the PR is actually engaged in the qualifying employment. But what constitutes "leave" and how that affects what counts, what gets credited, if the PR remains in the location where he or she is employed as a Crown Servant, is not readily apparent from these sources. In contrast, it is clear that if during a period of leave the PR travels outside the country in which he or she is deployed, that time will for sure NOT count; that is, those will be days absent, and not credited as days of presence.

 

[speeditx]

For the statutory provision itself, which is subsection 5(1.02) of the Citizenship Act, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont

For what information the applicant provides, see CIT 0177 which is the "RESIDENCE OUTSIDE CANADA" form "For Adult Citizenship Applicants Declaring Residence Outside Canada As A Crown Servant or With a Crown Servant Family Member" The information requested illuminates some details as to who qualifies for the credit.

There is a link to CIT 0177 (pdf) in the pertinent PDI (Program Delivery Instruction) "Calculating residence/physical presence for certain family members of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living abroad" which is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/grant/residence/calculate-physical-presence/calculating-residence-physical-presence-certain-family-members-canadian-citizen-permanent-resident-living-abroad.html

The other PDI which is pertinent is "How residence/physical presence is calculated" which is here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/grant/residence/calculate-physical-presence.html . . . scroll down to heading "Time residing outside Canada as a permanent resident employed as a Crown servant can be counted as physical presence" There is also a link to CIT 0177 here.

These PDIs do not offer much more detail than what the statutory provision itself states, in regards to who qualifies for credit toward the citizenship physical presence requirement based on time residing abroad as a Crown Servant. The first offers quite a bit more detail in regards to the criteria and additional factors governing who qualifies for credit based on being a family member accompanying the Crown Servant, which is mostly about establishing the qualifying relationship with the Crown Servant.

This makes sense. Who is a Crown Servant cannot be answered in the abstract. It depends on, as @Bs65 put it, "what job?"

So, frankly, your query is at best overly vague, since a key element is what job for what employer, let alone which of the categories of Crown Servant the query about. That is, as posed by @Bs65, "one thing you missed from your post would be deployment from where, what job?"

And no, referring to all three general categories does not help.

And even identifying a particular employer is not much help either, since it is the particular employment that must qualify.

And again, otherwise who qualifies as a Crown Servant for purposes of this credit cannot be answered in the abstract.

There is an illustration of this in the context of who is a citizen by descent and the second generation born abroad rule, in regards to a similar "exception" for descendants of a parent who in turn was born abroad to a parent (the grandparent) residing abroad as a Crown Servant at the time of the parent's birth. See the discussion explaining the directed verdict in favour of the grandchild's claim to citizenship in Fisher-Tennant v. Canada, 2018 FC 151, http://canlii.ca/t/hqdd6 This case illustrates how particular the determination is, meaning how much the specific details matter.

The PDIs do clarify that absences from the country where the Crown Servant is deployed do NOT count toward the physical presence requirement, which is reflected in CIT 0177 where travel history is to be reported (Item 2. in Section B in CIT 0177).

That may be relevant to this aspect of your query:



I am not sure there is an "official" rule regarding this, that is other than subsection 5(1.02) in the Citizenship Act.

Apart from how widely individual facts and circumstances can vary, it appears that generally the PR only gets credit for time residing outside Canada when the PR is actually engaged in the qualifying employment. But what constitutes "leave" and how that affects what counts, what gets credited, if the PR remains in the location where he or she is employed as a Crown Servant, is not readily apparent from these sources. In contrast, it is clear that if during a period of leave the PR travels outside the country in which he or she is deployed, that time will for sure NOT count; that is, those will be days absent, and not credited as days of presence.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. This helps.

I had a follow-up question in regards to this. The PDIs mentions Crown Servant (CS), but doesn't specify a type of skillset such as IT, Engineering, Medical, etc., so why is "what job?" relevant? Let's say he/she is a crown servant, accompanying crew of a Crown corporation, in an assistant capacity, for simplicity lets say "personal assistant" - why would this count or not count as qualifying job? Isn't any role of a deployed crown servant qualifying?

Ps: Needless to say "where?" i.e. which county, as long as outside of Canada, shouldn't matter? Please don't tell me there's some priority list of preferred countries!

Also, can residency be combined? Meaning, let's say someone resided in Canada for 1.5yrs and then went on a deployment as CS for 1.5, can such person claim the required 3 years of residency? I would see why not, but wanted to get your inputs,

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. This helps.

I had a follow-up question in regards to this. The PDIs mentions Crown Servant (CS), but doesn't specify a type of skillset such as IT, Engineering, Medical, etc., so why is "what job?" relevant? Let's say he/she is a crown servant, accompanying crew of a Crown corporation, in an assistant capacity, for simplicity lets say "personal assistant" - why would this count or not count as qualifying job? Isn't any role of a deployed crown servant qualifying?

Ps: Needless to say "where?" i.e. which county, as long as outside of Canada, shouldn't matter? Please don't tell me there's some priority list of preferred countries!

Also, can residency be combined? Meaning, let's say someone resided in Canada for 1.5yrs and then went on a deployment as CS for 1.5, can such person claim the required 3 years of residency? I would see why not, but wanted to get your inputs,

Easy part: Yes, credits toward fulfilling the physical presence requirement are cumulative. For the days that count within the relevant five years.


Not so easy part: Indeed, I am not sure I can explain how "what job" makes a difference. But I can say it does even though it is not about the category of work. It is about the employment relationship.

So you are right, whether the "job" is in IT or an Engineering position, or in Personnel or as an Office Worker, or whatever, that is not itself what matters. And likewise, it is not about which country as such. It is about the relationship, a relationship in which "what job" is a big element, in which the nature and details of deployment are a big element, the whole package in which all the individual parts are important.

As I noted before, who qualifies as a Crown Servant for purposes of this credit cannot be answered in the abstract. Who the employer is, what the job is, and the details of this, will determine whether the individual is residing abroad pursuant to qualifying Crown Servant employment.

Most employment that will qualify as being a Crown Servant is probably obvious. Which may be why you question the reasoning for emphasizing "what job." But you did not even refer to a particular type of employment in general, inquiring about the credit largely in the abstract. For which there is no answer, not a credible or informative answer anyway.

For example, in the case I referenced the "Crown Servant" was actually a University of British Columbia professor lecturing at a university in Malaysia. As I understand things, ordinarily a University Professor deployed abroad to lecture at a university abroad would not qualify as a Crown Servant. And thus the initial decision denying certification of citizenship was based on the grandfather, the professor, not qualifying as a Crown Servant at the time. But in that case, the Federal Court found the professor did qualify as a Crown Servant. Even though the professor was an employee of UBC and being paid by UBC.

Not because the job of university lecturer is or is not a qualifying "job." It was because HIS specific employment was pursuant to a federal government program, and a particular employment arrangement with the government.

 

[speeditx]

UBC is clearly identified as a SUCH Sector Organization in the Crown Agency Registry. Any foreign deployment, professor vs. janitor is clearly a CS deployment and as per policy should very clearly qualify. The above case was clear mistake by the adjudicator in the first place.

Without super complicating and trying to reference rarest of the rare cases which are eventually fixed by FC, I feel simply put, if an agency or corp is identified as Crown Corp (CC) in any of the Provincial registry, any Job (be it Helper, Professor or Janitor), as long as its a compensated foreign deployment by a CC, should normally qualify! agree?

Ps: It only usually gets "not so easy" or complicated, despite the policy being so clear / simple, when some (Adj's). think it's a personal battle, and that's when FCs come into picture. I feel bad for victims of bureaucratic delays.

 

[dpenabill]

UBC is clearly identified as a SUCH Sector Organization in the Crown Agency Registry. Any foreign deployment, professor vs. janitor is clearly a CS deployment and as per policy should very clearly qualify. The above case was clear mistake by the adjudicator in the first place.

Without super complicating and trying to reference rarest of the rare cases which are eventually fixed by FC, I feel simply put, if an agency or corp is identified as Crown Corp (CC) in any of the Provincial registry, any Job (be it Helper, Professor or Janitor), as long as its a compensated foreign deployment by a CC, should normally qualify! agree?

Nope. Do not agree.

BUT I am NO expert.

Not an expert and very far from it in regards to issues like this. For example, I am not clear about how employment with a Crown Corporation fits into these things, compared to being employed by the Federal government or a Provincial government, other than I know that Crown Corporations are mostly considered INDEPENDENT entities, which I believe, but am not sure, means that Crown Corporation employees are NOT (at least not necessarily) employed with "the federal public administration or the public service of a province" within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act.

My sense is that you have got things wrong. But I do not know this with confidence.

Well, you for sure have some things wrong, like what was involved in the Fisher-Tennant v. Canada, 2018 FC 151, http://canlii.ca/t/hqdd6 case.

NO, the Citizenship Officer's decision in that case was not clearly wrong based on Dr. Paul Tennant's position with UBC. You have apparently misread the substantive ruling in that case . . .
. . . noting that even as to the finding that Dr. Tennant was, in effect, a Crown Servant when lecturing in Malaysia, that was based on his employment with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA; subsequently merged into the Department of Foreign Affairs now named Global Affairs Canada), not his position with UBC.

Moreover, it is apparent that the Minister may still disagree. Probably still disagrees. There was a rather unusual appeal of the Tennant FC decision, since no question for further review was certified, and thus while Justice Ahmed's FC decision was ultimately upheld, that was based on a ruling that the Minister's appeal was procedurally barred. Not on the basis that Justice Ahmed reached the right conclusion.

The dissent in that decision would have allowed the appeal and states that Justice Ahmed's FC decision concluding Dr. Tennant was a Crown Servant was in error.

But the substantive issue, subject to findings of fact, as to whether Dr. Tennant was in effect a Crown Servant at the time, relates back to 1971, and I am not clear how things have changed in regards to these matters since.

In any event, to be clear, there is nothing in any of the three decisions (there are two FCA decisions in addition to the FC decision itself) which even hints that the Senior Program Advisor of the Citizenship and Passport Program Guidance branch of IRCC was in error when he advised the Citizenship Officer (the Officer deciding the application for a citizenship certificate) that Dr. Paul Tennant's employment abroad with UBC "would not qualify" for the Crown Servant exception.

Rather, the Citizenship Officer's error was in failing to appropriately make the further inquiries suggested by the Senior Program Advisor . . . which, according to Justice Ahmed's ruling, would have led to determining that Dr. Paul Tennant was a Crown Servant pursuant to employment with CIDA. Again, based on employment with CIDA and NOT the UBC.

I am NOT a Canadian lawyer, but as best I can read these decisions, it sure looks clear that both a professor and a janitor employed by UBC and deployed abroad by the university would NOT QUALIFY as a Crown Servant.

Allowing for the possibility that the particular job (going back to that "what job?" question), the nature and purpose and formalities of the deployment abroad, is otherwise pursuant to employment with "the federal public administration or the public service of a province" within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act . . . such as Justice Ahmed concluded Dr. Paul Tennant was based on the employment relationship with the CIDA .

My sense is that who qualifies as a crown servant deployed abroad is, in most cases, readily identifiable, fairly obvious. But again, that is IN THE PARTICULAR CASE. That depends on "what job." That is, relative to the particular employment relationship. Again, not so much about the job "classification" itself (even though that is undoubtedly a significant element), but the whole package.

The more commonly litigated issue probably revolves around whether the individual is "Locally-Engaged Staff," which is not about where the individual was located at or prior to taking the position, recognizing that the LES are employees of the public service, and whether the individual employee is a Foreign National, a Canadian PR, or a Canadian citizen does not dictate if they are LES or qualify as a crown servant deployed abroad.


NOTE: I cannot speak for @Bs65 or others, and will not attempt to, but many times a question like "what job?" is asked upfront because that is typically the dispositive issue, because questions like those you have posed are very often (probably most often) raised in regards to situations that do NOT QUALIFY. Rendering the more weedy aspects irrelevant. That is, a waste of time.

After all, how many NON-citizen Crown Servants do the Federal and Provincial governments employ and deploy abroad? I suspect there is a reason the PDIs are more detailed about who qualifies as a family member of a Crown Servant, and why Section 1 of CIT 0177 is for family members of a Crown Servant. I suspect who qualifies as a Crown Servant is fairly easy, fairly obvious, BUT involves a rather narrow range of positions with government agencies. Not Crown Corporations.

But I am not sure. I referenced the Tennant case mostly to illustrate how the details in the particular situation matter, to illustrate that such queries cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract.

 

[speeditx]

Nope. Do not agree.

BUT I am NO expert.

Not an expert and very far from it in regards to issues like this. For example, I am not clear about how employment with a Crown Corporation fits into these things, compared to being employed by the Federal government or a Provincial government, other than I know that Crown Corporations are mostly considered INDEPENDENT entities, which I believe, but am not sure, means that Crown Corporation employees are NOT (at least not necessarily) employed with "the federal public administration or the public service of a province" within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act.

My sense is that you have got things wrong. But I do not know this with confidence.

Well, you for sure have some things wrong, like what was involved in the Fisher-Tennant v. Canada, 2018 FC 151, http://canlii.ca/t/hqdd6 case.

NO, the Citizenship Officer's decision in that case was not clearly wrong based on Dr. Paul Tennant's position with UBC. You have apparently misread the substantive ruling in that case . . .
. . . noting that even as to the finding that Dr. Tennant was, in effect, a Crown Servant when lecturing in Malaysia, that was based on his employment with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA; subsequently merged into the Department of Foreign Affairs now named Global Affairs Canada), not his position with UBC.

Moreover, it is apparent that the Minister may still disagree. Probably still disagrees. There was a rather unusual appeal of the Tennant FC decision, since no question for further review was certified, and thus while Justice Ahmed's FC decision was ultimately upheld, that was based on a ruling that the Minister's appeal was procedurally barred. Not on the basis that Justice Ahmed reached the right conclusion.

The dissent in that decision would have allowed the appeal and states that Justice Ahmed's FC decision concluding Dr. Tennant was a Crown Servant was in error.

But the substantive issue, subject to findings of fact, as to whether Dr. Tennant was in effect a Crown Servant at the time, relates back to 1971, and I am not clear how things have changed in regards to these matters since.

In any event, to be clear, there is nothing in any of the three decisions (there are two FCA decisions in addition to the FC decision itself) which even hints that the Senior Program Advisor of the Citizenship and Passport Program Guidance branch of IRCC was in error when he advised the Citizenship Officer (the Officer deciding the application for a citizenship certificate) that Dr. Paul Tennant's employment abroad with UBC "would not qualify" for the Crown Servant exception.

Rather, the Citizenship Officer's error was in failing to appropriately make the further inquiries suggested by the Senior Program Advisor . . . which, according to Justice Ahmed's ruling, would have led to determining that Dr. Paul Tennant was a Crown Servant pursuant to employment with CIDA. Again, based on employment with CIDA and NOT the UBC.

I am NOT a Canadian lawyer, but as best I can read these decisions, it sure looks clear that both a professor and a janitor employed by UBC and deployed abroad by the university would NOT QUALIFY as a Crown Servant.

Allowing for the possibility that the particular job (going back to that "what job?" question), the nature and purpose and formalities of the deployment abroad, is otherwise pursuant to employment with "the federal public administration or the public service of a province" within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act . . . such as Justice Ahmed concluded Dr. Paul Tennant was based on the employment relationship with the CIDA .

My sense is that who qualifies as a crown servant deployed abroad is, in most cases, readily identifiable, fairly obvious. But again, that is IN THE PARTICULAR CASE. That depends on "what job." That is, relative to the particular employment relationship. Again, not so much about the job "classification" itself (even though that is undoubtedly a significant element), but the whole package.

The more commonly litigated issue probably revolves around whether the individual is "Locally-Engaged Staff," which is not about where the individual was located at or prior to taking the position, recognizing that the LES are employees of the public service, and whether the individual employee is a Foreign National, a Canadian PR, or a Canadian citizen does not dictate if they are LES or qualify as a crown servant deployed abroad.


NOTE: I cannot speak for @Bs65 or others, and will not attempt to, but many times a question like "what job?" is asked upfront because that is typically the dispositive issue, because questions like those you have posed are very often (probably most often) raised in regards to situations that do NOT QUALIFY. Rendering the more weedy aspects irrelevant. That is, a waste of time.

After all, how many NON-citizen Crown Servants do the Federal and Provincial governments employ and deploy abroad? I suspect there is a reason the PDIs are more detailed about who qualifies as a family member of a Crown Servant, and why Section 1 of CIT 0177 is for family members of a Crown Servant. I suspect who qualifies as a Crown Servant is fairly easy, fairly obvious, BUT involves a rather narrow range of positions with government agencies. Not Crown Corporations.

But I am not sure. I referenced the Tennant case mostly to illustrate how the details in the particular situation matter, to illustrate that such queries cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract.

I fairly understand your detailed analysis behind this, particularly the connection between "Crown Servant", "Crown Corp" and "the Govt. i.e. public services or the other two categories" and why that's important. So from what I gather, based on what you are saying, merely being an employee of a CC doesn't automatically qualify, one has to prove a Federal or Provincial Govt. connection to the very job itself. Essentially it should appear that the CS is proceeding abroad for a CC to full-fill a govt. funded/certified/authorized objective or contract? Obviously where the Govt. directly isn't sending.

So let's say the Federal or Provincial govt. funded a program XYZ that grants a CC. Now the CC sends a CS abroad to fulfill certain objectives related to XYZ (directly or indirectly). Then such arrangement may qualify?

I know it's difficult or rare for a Govt. to directly send some one (except CAF), let alone a non-citizen, but it could be possible for indirect connections to exist that could substantially be documented and presented, especially the one like discussed above. i.e. CC sending a CS oversees in accordance with a govt. funded program, where it's essential to establish the direct connection between the program's objective and the CS's function, as in how it relates to fulfilling that objective.

 

[dpenabill]

I fairly understand your detailed analysis behind this, particularly the connection between "Crown Servant", "Crown Corp" and "that of public services or the other two categories" and why that's important. So from what I gather, based on what you are saying, merely being an employee of a CC doesn't automatically qualify, one has to prove a (Federal or Provincial) govt. connection to the job itself. Essentially it should appear that the CS is proceeding abroad for a CC to full-fill a govt. funded/certified/authorized objective or contract?

So let's say the Federal or Provincial govt. funded a program that grants a CC to send a CS abroad to fulfill certain objectives related to that program. Then such arrangement may qualify?

I know it's difficult or rare of a Govt. to directly send some one (except CAF), let alone a non-citizen, but it could be possible for indirect connections to be substantially documented and presented, especially the one like discussed above. i.e. CC sending a CS oversees in accordance with a govt. funded program, where its essential to establish the direct connection between the program objective and the CS's function.

With emphasis: I do NOT know.

With emphasis: again, this is not an issue which can be reasonably answered in the abstract.

"What job," in particular, with consideration of the whole package including consideration of its individual parts, will largely if not entirely dictate whether that specific employment relationship and attendant circumstances qualifies for what is an EXCEPTION to required actual physical presence IN Canada.

Exceptions tend to be narrowly interpreted, narrowly applied.

Also for emphasis: As I previously noted, I referenced the Tennant case mostly to illustrate how the details in a particular situation matter, to illustrate that such queries cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract.

My impression is that those employed by a Crown Corporation generally do not qualify as a Crown Servant within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act. Not by virtue of their employment by a Crown Corporation anyway.

Hard to see how speculation beyond that could be useful.

It's the job, the details of the job, the specific job in question. Otherwise it is vague, largely uninformative speculation.

 

[speeditx]

With emphasis: I do NOT know.

With emphasis: again, this is not an issue which can be reasonably answered in the abstract.

"What job," in particular, with consideration of the whole package including consideration of its individual parts, will largely if not entirely dictate whether that specific employment relationship and attendant circumstances qualifies for what is an EXCEPTION to required actual physical presence IN Canada.

Exceptions tend to be narrowly interpreted, narrowly applied.

Also for emphasis: As I previously noted, I referenced the Tennant case mostly to illustrate how the details in a particular situation matter, to illustrate that such queries cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract.

My impression is that those employed by a Crown Corporation generally do not qualify as a Crown Servant within the scope of subsection 5.(1.02) in the Citizenship Act. Not by virtue of their employment by a Crown Corporation anyway.

Hard to see how speculation beyond that could be useful.

It's the job, the details of the job, the specific job in question. Otherwise it is vague, largely uninformative speculation.

Thanks. One last thing. Assuming the "job" qualifies (I know hard to accept/digest, but please assume)! I am not sure if the PDI addresses full-time vs. part time (job) situation. Meaning, usually a job is 9-5 as in 8 hours; but what if the job is not hourly and is more of a contract with flexible work hours or more/less than typical work day. Say in the above professors case he only gives 2 lectures in a day of 2 hours each and thus only works 4 hours in a day. Do you read any requirement there? This is important, therefore please provide your thoughts.

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks. One last thing. Assuming the "job" qualifies (I know hard to accept/digest, but please assume)! I am not sure if the PDI addresses full-time vs. part time (job) situation. Meaning, usually a job is 9-5 as in 8 hours; but what if the job is not hourly and is more of a contract with flexible work hours or more/less than typical work day. Say in the above professors case he only gives 2 lectures in a day of 2 hours each and thus only works 4 hours in a day. Do you read any requirement there? This is important, therefore please provide your thoughts.

To my view it makes no sense to focus on isolated aspects without context. It is still about "what job?"

If you assume the position qualifies, that answers the question. If the job qualifies, it qualifies.

Otherwise the dispositive part of the equation is still about "what job?" Not about this or that detail alone, even though this or that detail (including hours or such) considered in conjunction with the whole package can matter.

My guess is that almost all positions that will qualify OBVIOUSLY qualify. No need to analyze much. And if the position does not obviously qualify, odds are it doesn't.

By the way, considering the professor example. Been there, done that (a quarter century or so ago now). There is a lot more to the "job" than the amount of time spent actually lecturing. Professors do not get paid by the hour. And there are scores of other positions for which, even more so, it is not about the "hours" doing this or that. So, "what job?" is still the key, still what matters.

Warrants noting, for clarity, the fact (or more precisely, the legal conclusion) that Dr. Paul Tennant had a position that qualified appears to be have been an unusual if not rather rare situation. Seems likely there was some substantive reason the Minister still opposed issuing the certificate of citizenship in that case even after a Federal Court justice ordered it to be issued.

 

[speeditx]

To my view it makes no sense to focus on isolated aspects without context. It is still about "what job?"

If you assume the position qualifies, that answers the question. If the job qualifies, it qualifies.

Otherwise the dispositive part of the equation is still about "what job?" Not about this or that detail alone, even though this or that detail (including hours or such) considered in conjunction with the whole package can matter.

My guess is that almost all positions that will qualify OBVIOUSLY qualify. No need to analyze much. And if the position does not obviously qualify, odds are it doesn't.

By the way, considering the professor example. Been there, done that (a quarter century or so ago now). There is a lot more to the "job" than the amount of time spent actually lecturing. Professors do not get paid by the hour. And there are scores of other positions for which, even more so, it is not about the "hours" doing this or that. So, "what job?" is still the key, still what matters.

Warrants noting, for clarity, the fact (or more precisely, the legal conclusion) that Dr. Paul Tennant had a position that qualified appears to be have been an unusual if not rather rare situation. Seems likely there was some substantive reason the Minister still opposed issuing the certificate of citizenship in that case even after a Federal Court justice ordered it to be issued.

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I mean, let's say the structure/setup (& kind) of job is acceptable to IRCC/CIC, and if the only question arises over such position being full-time vs part time. Are you trying to say that full-time vs part time doest matter, as long as the job 'OTHERWISE' qualifies?

Let me make it even simpler to understand and/or digest. Let's say in an hypothetical & perfect world, two people (A & B) are working / sent oversees for the same Crown Corp for the exact same duty i.e. "job". 'A' works full-time (8 hrs a day) and has been found to qualify, let say by IRCC. 'B' does the exact same same "job" (as in duty or function), but only part-time for 4hrs/day. According to you both qualify irrespective of the hours as their job is the same (except the number of hours)?

 

[canuck78]

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I mean, let's say the structure/setup (& kind) of job is acceptable to IRCC/CIC, and if the only question arises over such position being full-time vs part time. Are you trying to say that full-time vs part time doest matter, as long as the job 'OTHERWISE' qualifies?

Let me make it even simpler to understand and/or digest. Let's say in an hypothetical & perfect world, two people (A & B) are working / sent oversees for the same Crown Corp for the exact same duty i.e. "job". 'A' works full-time (8 hrs a day) and has been found to qualify, let say by IRCC. 'B' does the exact same same "job" (as in duty or function), but only part-time for 4hrs/day. According to you both qualify irrespective of the hours as their job is the same (except the number of hours)?

In general would expect that a very small number of permanent residents would ever qualify to count their time abroad towards their residency requirements for citizenship. It is impossible for anyone to comment in abstract term when it comes to such a rare sutuation. If you are not comfortable being more specific about your case you should consult an immigration lawyer. Based on your previous posts you were refused A PRTD a few years ago and appealed. Did you appeal? Did you return to Canada?