For Clarification:
At the risk of saying more than what needs to be said . . .
. . . first a note for emphasis: as referenced by
@armoured, days outside Canada credited toward RO compliance based on accompanying a citizen-partner do
NOT get credit toward meeting citizenship presence.
Again, for Clarification . . .
I agree with
@scylla but I also recognize why you ask. Should be fine proceeding based on the responses by
@scylla and
@armoured.
In particular,
NO NEED to read my comments. Unless you are interested.
BUT I see what you mean about Question 5.3 and I will drill down into this some, hopefully more clarifying explanation than noisy verbiage.
Foremost, a
REMINDER: Follow the instructions. Instructions for PR card application (IMM 5444) are contained in the Guide, IMM 5445, which is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...acement-renewal-change-gender-identifier.html
Again, I fully agree with @scylla in regards to the REASON for absence.
That is, it is OK state whatever the
reason for the trip was, generally, briefly. No need to precisely describe particular reasons in detail. No need, for example, to elaborate that the reason for taking a holiday in Spain was to visit the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the See in Seville; "
holiday" or "
vacation" says enough.
In particular,
unless the PR is claiming credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation based on one of the situations referenced as A, B, or C, it is OK to check "
Other" in the "
Reason for absence" column and then briefly state a general reason.
Thus, if total number of days spent outside Canada is less than 1095 days, as calculated in application form, OK to check "
Other" in the "
Reason for absence" column and then briefly state general reason
even if time outside Canada might qualify for credit under A, B, or C. Nothing wrong, nothing misleading or deceptive, if PR in the employ of Canadian business travels for work abroad but still checks "
Other" in the "
Reason for absence" column and briefly states "
for work;" or similarly, if PR married to citizen goes abroad for a year while spouse attends classes, checks "
Other" and briefly states "
living in XYZ while spouse attends school."
And that will, as
@scylla notes, avoid "
creating a lot more work" than necessary.
And it is not "
lying." . . . or deceptive, misleading or even evasive . . . it is an honest statement of the reason.
Which leads back to question 5.3 and your concern:
5.3 Have you been accompanying a Canadian citizen who is your spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, your parent, while you were absent from Canada?
Most people (or at least a lot of people) likely interpret a couple traveling together to mean each was accompanying the other, indicating the honest answer would be "
yes" . . . BUT if you truthfully answer "
yes" the form specifically references "
supporting documents" that need to be included with the application . . . apparently whether or not the PR is claiming a credit for days abroad accompanying their citizen-partner.
NOT to WORRY. For a PR who was not outside Canada more than 1095 days, as calculated in the application form, and does not need credit for days outside Canada,
"No" is OK here as well. The language IRCC employs in its instructions, forms, and notices quite often does not precisely fit all the many varied circumstances and situations covered. It is OK to use common sense and personal judgment (within objective reason of course) to best understand what is instructed, what is requested, and respond accordingly. Many here will justifiably caution against overthinking these things. And this is just one among many examples. 5.3 and related questions and instructions are easily, and safely understood to be about claiming the accompanying-citizen-partner credit.
I could drill even deeper into this, and elaborate more fully, because the term "
accompanying" in this context is what jurists would call "
a term of art," which is to say it has a special meaning that does not fully comport with its meaning in general usage. Which, in this specific context, would be digging into a real can of worms, because there are actually multiple, conflicting meanings for "
accompanying" in this context. Not even the Federal Courts, let alone various IAD panels, agree which governs. (Warrants noting, however, the variations in meaning should only affect a very small number of PRs in very particular circumstances, of no import even to the vast majority of those PRs relying on this credit, and zero import for any PR not relying on this credit.)
Which means even if the PR was accompanying their citizen-partner, as most understand what that means, unless the PR is overtly
claiming they were accompanying their citizen-spouse according to what that technically means, for purposes of qualifying for the credit, it is more than OK, actually honest to answer "
no" to Question 5.3.
Thus, no need, none at all, to wander into that morass here.
All a PR needs to know is that if the PR is not claiming the accompanying-citizen-partner credit, there is no need to answer "yes" in response to question 5.3.
That said, quite a few PRs live abroad accompanying their Canadian citizen spouse/partner and rely on this credit to comply with the PR RO. If they apply for a PR Travel Document, or after returning to Canada they apply for a new PR card, then your initial query would be relevant.
I will respond to that for reference.
If not claiming any accompanying-citizen-partner credit, this does not apply. Read what follows if interested; otherwise, ignore.
For a PR outside Canada more than 1095 days and claiming accompanying-citizen-partner credit . . .
There are specific instructions for what to include with the application as proof when relying on credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen, describing what
must be included and what
may also be included. This is in Appendix A: Residency Obligation and in the section covering "
Time spent outside Canada" for "
Situation B. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada."
Clue: there is no mention of a statutory declaration of common-law union in the Appendix. So, clearly, the stat-dec is not a required document. But, if it is "
proof of common-law partnership" then the PR may include it as a supporting document.
Without getting tangled in the details involved in what might be required "
to prove" a common-law relationship (let alone distinguish what this might mean in contrast to where the instructions reference documents that will "
show" something), perhaps the most salient aspect of establishing a common-law relationship is showing that it is
an on-going relationship. Unlike marriage, which continues until there is an official termination, a common-law relationship will terminate if the couple does not factually continue to meet the elements of common-law.
In the absence of more current one, a stat-dec of common-law dated 2017 is probably, nonetheless, competent evidence of the relationship sufficient to constitute a supporting document, even though that only verifies the relationship was established not that it was on-going during the relevant period of time (which is necessary to qualify for the credit). If included, obviously other documentation of the on-going common-law relationship should also be included, with clear documentation of cohabitation probably being the most important.
