To be clear and specific, here is the statement that I called hogwash:
You've made a blanket statement here that the Charter doesn't apply to Quebec. That is complete and utter hogwash, full on and undiluted. I think some of your other rather broad statements bordered on hogwash, for exaggerating the situation - but I didn't say so, and therefore I'm not going to litigate other people's chacartizations of your statements. At any rate: simple point, 'hogwash' was not meant to apply to everything you said - just those statements [that were hogwash.]
As for the overall situation: no limitation on charter rights in the main; what we have (in my view) is a well-known limitation with respect to non-permanent residents, and a requirement that those applying to become permanent residents not misrepresent. (Reminder: applicants misrepresenting to become a PR is not covered by charter rights.)
As noted by
@dpenabill, though - there is at heart a matter of intent here, and intent is difficult to observe, and hence difficult to implement any kind of enforcement (except via inference). And without a different enforcement regime (rather than the 'light touch' of basically no checks), then the possibility, however remote, of potential retrospective enforcement is what is left. (And will likely be the subject of court challenges - to which have at it, I say - I'm no fan of this particular 'gotcha').
But yes, Charter rights still apply. If what you mean is that *to be absolutely safe* someone who wishes to exercise the charter right of freedom of movement in Canada should make sure that no such inference can be made - retrospectively - about their intent to settle outside Quebec not having been honoured. The best way to do this is to ... leave Quebec and reside somewhere else for several months at least, and document efforts to find work, etc. There can then be no question of intent - intent was shown.
As for your specific cases, my somewhat informed opinion is that there are distinctions that can be made here:
As an overall point, I do not have info on how likely someone is to face deeper checks etc. You've said 'most likely' in one case. I don't know that anyone has the empirical data to say. It seems to me that some programs are more demanding in terms of requirements to leave/reside in specific provinces, and these examples don't get into that. (Possibly that was intentional)
1. Possibly, yes. This leaves out whether there is supporting info that the individual attempted to find a way to live elsewhere, showing intent; travel and interviews would be a lot stronger than saying "I sent my resume out." (Personally I'd guess that there's more likelihood of inquiry into intent when someone was already living in Quebec and never attempted to move; it looks like the person tried to game the system by applying for a program where they met the requirements *by agreeing to do something they did not intend to do* - the very definition of misrepresentation, even if not often enforced.)
2. No case at all and no inquiry into facts likely; tax records and others will show the individual lived elsewhere. Clear intent shown. This shouldn't get more than a glance.
3. I don't see sufficient information here to decide - but if the individual both landed in Quebec and never left, even for interviews, etc. - not a very strong case. Could a lawyer make it work based on eg pre-landing behaviour? Perhaps.
4. You write "but landed in or moved to Quebec" - to me, too vague here. If you mean the person landed in vancouver and got a connecting flight to Montreal - bad fact pattern. If you mean landed in Calgary but after some months there got a great job offer and job search showed no demand - not likely a problem, intent clearly shown in support of case. Note this latter scenario - the person had no nexus in Quebec at all beforehand (that I can see).
A side note that we've referred to 'intent' here, and I'd suggest that there's positive and negative intent (my terminology). Positive intent - showing the applicant made an actual effort to attempt to live elsewhere - may be difficult to prove, and the paucity of evidence of positive intent may not be very prejudicial to the applicant. (A complete lack of any might be)
Negative intent: by this I mean evidence that would tend to show or underline that the individual was purposefully misleading IRCC (or related) and/or never had intent to live outside Quebec or attempt to. My guess is such evidence (even if inferred) is going to have more weight. We're not going to (likely) have eg correspondence stating baldly "I've no intent to ever leave hahaha those dupes in the govt, I've fooled them!". But some things - work contracts signed before becoming a PR, continuous employment with a single employer (before/after), leases in Quebec signed before even arriving in Canada, professional qualifications never pursued to allow work outside Quebec, etc - these might lead to inference of negative intent.
But overall I'd underline: not clear to me how many such cases there actually are, or even how often eg citizenship cases are subject to more scrutiny (resulting in delays anyway). I've no sense of how often this happens - and I don't trust anecdotes about "I heard about a guy who..." because such tales usually (in my experience) leave out the other side of the story - i.e. not many will relate how flagrantly they were out of line. (Their version of the defence is always going to be some vague "I looked for work eslewhere but ..." and there's no opportunity to ask factual questions about how much, did they travel, etc.)
Going back to the opening post in this thread:
Assuming there is some evidence about the potential job transfer/being laid off, I'd say this is more likely to be one where IRCC - if they inquire - is not going to pursue. The EI period provides some support, as well, as does the education - in my view - in that someone in both situations usually more open to moving (i.e. fairly likely that no decent opportunities came up, and the person may not have had resources to pursue more). Yes, that's my subjective interpretation, with only a couple minutes' reading; anyone can disagree with it. But I think IRCC wouldn't pursue because too much opening to challenge on any kind of judicial review ("I really tried, you think I stayed on EI because I wanted to, etc.") And of course we have to admit - this is assuming the fact pattern is true and doesn't omit anything important. (If IRCC were to look into it, I suspect they'd devote very little time to analysis and make a decision based on the very limited fact patterns - and a decision that at this point is only 'is it worth pursuing or not'. I know what my guess is on that.)
FWIW.
