Not All Mistakes Are Created Equal:
In particular I concur in the observation by @spyfy that any effort to forecast the processing timeline would be "fortune telling" (which, perhaps I should add, is totally unreliable, recognizing I know a number of intelligent, well educated, otherwise reasonable persons who, for who knows why, nonetheless have some faith in fortune telling, utterly unfounded faith).
I generally concur that significant mistakes in the application, and especially any omission of material information, should be corrected sooner rather than later.
I am posting, however, to emphasize that NOT every mistake made in an application needs to be corrected.
As oft noted, too often subverted to technicalities and hyper-technicalities, it does not hurt to employ some common sense.
In particular, many recent posts in this forum have tended to exaggerate, sometimes vastly exaggerate, the importance of otherwise insignificant details or technicalities. The danger is not merely a matter of suffering unnecessarily elevated anxiety (which is itself important since this process does cause some to suffer rather serious anxiety, and we should aim to quell or minimize unnecessary worry) or the risk of bumping an application into non-routine processing by making unnecessary supplemental submissions. In particular, there is the other end of the spectrum, a danger that the excessive attention given to rather trivial matters can obscure or overshadow real issues, matters of much importance, situations which do demand corrective action or, for some, obtaining a consultation with a competent and reputable professional.
The mistake reported by the OP here offers a salient example. The significance of an omission like failing to disclose part time employment in the work history will vary considerably from one applicant to another. It may be NO big deal at all, trivial even, a matter not worth much consideration let alone submitting a correction to IRCC. OR, it could be a big deal, a matter of importance, a failure to disclose which could have a significant impact, positively or negatively.
Sure, of course, the applicant SHOULD disclose all work history in item 11 in the current application, including part-time employment, and even if that overlaps other reported activity in the work history.
BUT the mistake in failing to disclose some part-time job may be insignificant enough to disregard, to not bother correcting.
If the period of time in which the applicant was engaged in a part-time job, working IN CANADA, is totally within a period of time the applicant was employed full time IN CANADA, and the part time employment was relatively insubstantial compared to the full time employment, the failure to disclose the part-time job almost certainly falls into the category of NO HARM, NO FOUL, no need to submit a correction. May be worth mentioning during the interview and certainly the applicant should be prepared to address it during an interview if asked. But there may be no need to make a correction to the application.
Of course the more substantial the part-time work was, the more that would tip the scales in favour of submitting a correction.
What is substantial is relative. Part time employment outside Canada, for example, looms large and important: it is something that IRCC will undoubtedly have an interest in precisely because that would need to be compared to the applicant's declared absences. A failure to disclose any employment abroad (during the eligibility period) could constitute a material misrepresentation by omission.
Part time employment that constitutes the applicant's only employment for a period of time is important.
For some people (like my partner), part-time employment can be the individual's primary employment for extended periods of time. Obviously that part time employment is an important factor.
More hours, especially compared to other employment, means it is more important.
Longer duration, especially if it bridges any gap in other reported employment, means it is more important.
In contrast, early in my career (in what is virtually another lifetime, nearly four decades ago) I had a part-time gig mowing the lawns on a large estate, five or six hours a week or so, seasonal of course but it lasted over the course of years. It was totally about an easy way to supplement my income doing some physical work outdoors while building a practice in my profession. I'd have totally overlooked that "part time employment" (and most likely did overlook it in my PR visa application) except for the discussion here regarding the OP's part time employment. I am confident that a failure to disclose such work activity would be insignificant. Not worth making a correction.
I have gone into this detail in part, but only in part, to highlight that it is NOT necessary to rush to correct any little mistake in the application. To my view it is just as important to reassure applicants there is NO NEED to worry or be overly anxious about having made a minor mistake in their application. IRCC is NOT engaged in a GOTCHA game.
The intensity of attention given minor details in this forum, of late, including focusing on incremental steps in the process like when the application has IP status, is a bit disturbing. I see forum reports and personally get queries about ATIP applications for GCMS reports by scores of applicants who should not be worried at all about how things are going, even if they did not see their application get IP status nearly as soon as others. The level of anxiousness in waiting for the next step is way out of proportion to reason. It is apparent that nearly if not more than a 100,000 new applications may have been submitted since the change to the 3/5 rules. Some applicants are going to see fast timelines. Many applicants are going to suffer slower timelines. In the meantime, IRCC is besieged with inquiries in addition to the huge number of applications. The workload, the sheer volume of tasks for just routine processing let alone additional tasks related to correcting applications, is worth taking into consideration when considering whether a mistake is one which warrants submitting a correction.
Common sense, in this context, might tip the scales in favour of making the correction if it is at all feasible the mistake might be interpreted to be a material misrepresentation, approaching this tending to err on the side of making the correction. Otherwise, if the mistake is more or less a matter of detail rather than something having material significance, it should be OK to at least wait to the interview to address it. Exercise one own best personal judgment in between.
I largely concur in many of the responses above.
In particular I concur in the observation by @spyfy that any effort to forecast the processing timeline would be "fortune telling" (which, perhaps I should add, is totally unreliable, recognizing I know a number of intelligent, well educated, otherwise reasonable persons who, for who knows why, nonetheless have some faith in fortune telling, utterly unfounded faith).
I generally concur that significant mistakes in the application, and especially any omission of material information, should be corrected sooner rather than later.
I am posting, however, to emphasize that NOT every mistake made in an application needs to be corrected.
As oft noted, too often subverted to technicalities and hyper-technicalities, it does not hurt to employ some common sense.
In particular, many recent posts in this forum have tended to exaggerate, sometimes vastly exaggerate, the importance of otherwise insignificant details or technicalities. The danger is not merely a matter of suffering unnecessarily elevated anxiety (which is itself important since this process does cause some to suffer rather serious anxiety, and we should aim to quell or minimize unnecessary worry) or the risk of bumping an application into non-routine processing by making unnecessary supplemental submissions. In particular, there is the other end of the spectrum, a danger that the excessive attention given to rather trivial matters can obscure or overshadow real issues, matters of much importance, situations which do demand corrective action or, for some, obtaining a consultation with a competent and reputable professional.
The mistake reported by the OP here offers a salient example. The significance of an omission like failing to disclose part time employment in the work history will vary considerably from one applicant to another. It may be NO big deal at all, trivial even, a matter not worth much consideration let alone submitting a correction to IRCC. OR, it could be a big deal, a matter of importance, a failure to disclose which could have a significant impact, positively or negatively.
Sure, of course, the applicant SHOULD disclose all work history in item 11 in the current application, including part-time employment, and even if that overlaps other reported activity in the work history.
BUT the mistake in failing to disclose some part-time job may be insignificant enough to disregard, to not bother correcting.
If the period of time in which the applicant was engaged in a part-time job, working IN CANADA, is totally within a period of time the applicant was employed full time IN CANADA, and the part time employment was relatively insubstantial compared to the full time employment, the failure to disclose the part-time job almost certainly falls into the category of NO HARM, NO FOUL, no need to submit a correction. May be worth mentioning during the interview and certainly the applicant should be prepared to address it during an interview if asked. But there may be no need to make a correction to the application.
Of course the more substantial the part-time work was, the more that would tip the scales in favour of submitting a correction.
What is substantial is relative. Part time employment outside Canada, for example, looms large and important: it is something that IRCC will undoubtedly have an interest in precisely because that would need to be compared to the applicant's declared absences. A failure to disclose any employment abroad (during the eligibility period) could constitute a material misrepresentation by omission.
Part time employment that constitutes the applicant's only employment for a period of time is important.
For some people (like my partner), part-time employment can be the individual's primary employment for extended periods of time. Obviously that part time employment is an important factor.
More hours, especially compared to other employment, means it is more important.
Longer duration, especially if it bridges any gap in other reported employment, means it is more important.
In contrast, early in my career (in what is virtually another lifetime, nearly four decades ago) I had a part-time gig mowing the lawns on a large estate, five or six hours a week or so, seasonal of course but it lasted over the course of years. It was totally about an easy way to supplement my income doing some physical work outdoors while building a practice in my profession. I'd have totally overlooked that "part time employment" (and most likely did overlook it in my PR visa application) except for the discussion here regarding the OP's part time employment. I am confident that a failure to disclose such work activity would be insignificant. Not worth making a correction.
I have gone into this detail in part, but only in part, to highlight that it is NOT necessary to rush to correct any little mistake in the application. To my view it is just as important to reassure applicants there is NO NEED to worry or be overly anxious about having made a minor mistake in their application. IRCC is NOT engaged in a GOTCHA game.
The intensity of attention given minor details in this forum, of late, including focusing on incremental steps in the process like when the application has IP status, is a bit disturbing. I see forum reports and personally get queries about ATIP applications for GCMS reports by scores of applicants who should not be worried at all about how things are going, even if they did not see their application get IP status nearly as soon as others. The level of anxiousness in waiting for the next step is way out of proportion to reason. It is apparent that nearly if not more than a 100,000 new applications may have been submitted since the change to the 3/5 rules. Some applicants are going to see fast timelines. Many applicants are going to suffer slower timelines. In the meantime, IRCC is besieged with inquiries in addition to the huge number of applications. The workload, the sheer volume of tasks for just routine processing let alone additional tasks related to correcting applications, is worth taking into consideration when considering whether a mistake is one which warrants submitting a correction.
Common sense, in this context, might tip the scales in favour of making the correction if it is at all feasible the mistake might be interpreted to be a material misrepresentation, approaching this tending to err on the side of making the correction. Otherwise, if the mistake is more or less a matter of detail rather than something having material significance, it should be OK to at least wait to the interview to address it. Exercise one own best personal judgment in between.
