NOTE: I do not currently follow the particular procedures for obtaining PR status, and am not familiar with the nomination programs in particular provinces. There are discussions related to this subject in the PR Obligations part of this site, but you may need to dive into the back pages to find them. I believe there are more focused discussions related to these programs, and issues related to moving out of province, in the Provincial Nomination Program Immigration forum here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/provincial-nomination-program-immigration.6/
and also some in the Permanent Residence in Canada forum here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/permanent-residence-in-canada.57/
However, I do follow misrepresentation cases. Which is a major component of this subject.
In addition to observations by
@akbardxb and
@armoured . . .
To be clear, there is a great deal about this subject I do not know or understand. But I will say, based on what I have seen, and even more so on what we have not seen in this forum, my GUESS is that moving after ten months seems unlikely to trigger a problem.
That's just a guess. It is based in significant part on recognizing (it appears) there are scores of PRs who, similar to you, move out of the nominating province sometime after landing, while in contrast reports of problems because of that are not common. It is also based on an assumption you have not otherwise created a paper/digital trail indicating you were looking for employment or a residence in another province BEFORE or very soon after landing and becoming a PR.
Misrepresentation is the essential underlying issue here: did the PR obtain status by misrepresentations made during the process of obtaining PR status through a provincial nomination program?
In the broad sense, the issue is whether the nominee's representations about intentions, plans, or commitments, in regards to settling and working in the nominating province, were in effect fraudulent. It appears that a significant number of prospective immigrants see the provincial programs as a means for obtaining PR status in Canada with little or no real intention of settling and working in the nominating province.
Once a provincial nominee has landed, and is a PR, the Charter mobility rights are in effect and a PR is entitled to move to any province. (Note: I am not at all sure, but there may be some exceptions, noting that certain programs in New Brunswick have been mentioned in this regard.)
To be clear, however, moving to another province can nonetheless constitute evidence the PR made misrepresentations about their intentions or plans.
Thus, how long the PR stayed in the nominating province, after landing, is only indirect, circumstantial evidence of what the PR's intentions were prior to, and right up to the landing. While I cannot say for sure (and it is unlikely anyone else here can either), the importance of the timeline for moving out of the nominating province is mostly whether it triggers elevated scrutiny and, in particular, an investigation of the PR, looking into the details of the PR's path to obtaining nomination and PR status, to discern if there was misrepresentation.
Like many other issues a PR can encounter, what triggers inquiry, an investigation, is often a key component. Once triggered, the dynamics of the situation can and typically do change considerably.
A short, and particularly a very short timeline, is more likely to trigger suspicion and inquiry, if not an outright investigation. The longer the timeline the less likely it will trigger suspicion.
Beyond that, again the timeline can be circumstantial evidence the PR did not have the intention to settle and work in the province as represented in the process of obtaining the nomination and in the process of landing. Other than a timeline so short that on its face it more or less says there was no real (truthful) intent to settle in the province, once an investigation is triggered then CBSA/IRCC will focus on other evidence (I am not sure but believe that it will primarily be CBSA, perhaps its NSSD, that will conduct the investigation). My sense is that many of the cases where there is a misrepresentation prosecution (typically not criminal, but as to inadmissibility for misrepresentation), there has been some additional source indicating reason to suspect and providing evidence to show misrepresentation. Sometimes, it appears, there are provincial authorities who probe the PR's case and make a referral to IRCC/CBSA, part of provincial program integrity measures. Sometimes there is a whistleblower. (In addition to employers feeling duped, it appears that disgruntled sexual partners or even former spouses tend to be among the more common "
informants.")
No special expertise in criminology necessary, however, to recognize that a nominee (pre-PR) who searches for, let alone applies for employment, or actually enters into a prospective employment arrangement outside the nominating province, is creating a paper/digital trail of an intent to obtain employment outside the nominating province, more or less demonstrating any representations about settling in the nominating province are not truthful. Obviously, likewise as to efforts to secure a residence outside the nominating province.
While such job search exercises (likewise shopping for a residence) very soon after landing do not directly prove misrepresentation, here too the sooner after landing that takes place, the stronger the circumstantial evidence of misrepresentation.
Relationship To Citizenship Application in Particular:
Prosecution for misrepresentation in the provincial PR nomination process can be initiated or triggered apart from making an application for citizenship. Actually this is something more often screened prior to and during the landing process.
One might ask who would be so stupid, but among the more typical cases the would-be Canadian immigrant will go through a provincial nomination program, get PR approved, and arrive at a Port-of-Entry clearly not headed for the nominating province, and sometimes even clearly headed for a job in a province other than the nominating province. No go.
So far as anecdotal reporting in this forum goes, prosecution for misrepresentation in the provincial PR nomination process triggered by a citizenship application, does NOT appear to be "
common," but of course you have yourself answered your question in part, as to whether anyone has encountered this, referencing a post illustrating that yes, indeed, someone has. And there are indeed multiple, similar reports, albeit only occasionally and mostly scattered about in other parts of the forum.
The role a citizenship application has in this is the extent to which the information submitted in a citizenship application, which must include address and employment history for a full five years, suggests that during the procedure for obtaining PR status in one of these programs, the PR/applicant misrepresented their intentions in regards to employment in the nominating province. In making a citizenship application the PR must provide IRCC what amounts to precise information about how long they were in the nominating province and how long they were employed there. Some of the anecdotal reports in the forum involve cases in which the PR spent less than ten weeks, some even less than ten days, and in addition to those who never worked at all in the nominating province (but at least spent some time there, at the least purportedly seeking employment there), there have been some who went directly to a different province upon landing.
That is, to some extent it can be what the PR reports in address and work history, in the citizenship application, which draws attention and potentially triggers inquiry or an investigation.
A PR can always wait to make the citizenship application so that the eligibility period covered in address and employment history is well past the year in which they landed as a provincial nominee. And, indeed, actually there can be many circumstances in which a PR might decide to delay making a citizenship application to put some of their personal history outside the eligibility period (many, for example, may have had rather messy transient circumstances for a year or even longer after landing, and a pattern of address, work, and travel history that is so messy it would be better to wait to apply past having to declare it in detail, especially those who do not have good records for such time periods, and even more so if they cannot be certain of their travel dates).
