Going back to the early exchanges: it is imperative to know, for sure, whether you were issued a 44(1) Report or not at the PoE. As others have commented, the lack of paperwork suggests NO. But it is also apparent there was some miscommunications or misunderstandings during the PoE exchanges, or at least a substantial risk of some miscommunications or misunderstandings.
To be clear, there is NOTHING to "appeal" UNLESS you were in fact issued a 44(1) Report.
There are alternative meanings for the term "appeal" which include making a request (typically an urgent request), which could reference something like making an application to IRCC for a new PR card based on H&C reasons. But if the PoE officers were using English and they specifically used the term "appeal," it is difficult to understand why they did so UNLESS you were in fact issued a 44(1) Report.
Moreover, "
We were . . . told that there was possibility of being denied entry to Canada . . . "
Something is missing here as well. As long as you remain Canadians you are entitled entry into Canada. You remain Canadians as long as there has not been a formal adjudication terminating your PR status. Even if they did issue a 44(1) Report at the PoE and a Departure Order, you would remain Canadians at least another thirty days and LONGER if you filed an appeal during those thirty days. So even if you were Reported, the PoE officers would be REQUIRED to allow you entry into Canada.
And if they did not issue a Report during that PoE examination, you would continue to be Canadians until there was some other action taken to terminate your status. So, for example, assuming you only stay weeks or a few months this time, even the next time you came to Canada, you would continue to be Canadians and entitled entry into Canada the next time you arrived at a PoE.
There are other incongruities. Others focused a bit on this in the early posts here.
Another incongruity is the apparent admonition about not qualifying for health care coverage (you were "
informed that we could not apply for OHIP etc"). Indeed, you asked the right question: "
Also why were we told that OHIP application was not possible if our PR status is still valid and not being revoked?"
Right . . . unless this was in response to your QUESTIONS about Canadian health care eligibility, in which the response may have been based on some particular circumstances in your personal situation, such as you do not plan to be in Canada at least five of the first six months after your arrival, which would suggest the officers were attempting to be helpful. BUT if that is what the officer was doing, that was offering advice outside the scope of the officer's job description.
In particular, IN TERMS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS, you qualify for OHIP and as long as you have your expired PR cards (less than five years since date of expiration) those should suffice to establish your PR status. (see
https://www.ontario.ca/page/documents-needed-get-health-card ). That is, if the officer was saying you could not apply for OHIP because of problems with your PR status, that suggests something else was happening other than being allowed to enter without being reported.
IN any event, however, the take-away is the importance of clearly understanding what your current status is. Which is not entirely clear.
That noted, as others have observed,
IF YOU WERE ALLOWED INTO CANADA WITHOUT BEING REPORTED, that is your big opportunity to save your PR status . . . This situation is comparable to many discussed throughout this forum. And there are some oft-repeated, well known guidelines for which there is not much controversy (or at least there should not be): while a PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation is at RISK of losing PR status anytime there is a RO examination/determination, IF SOMEHOW the PR has nonetheless been able to return to Canada without being Reported, and thus is IN Canada, the BEST approach, the safest approach, is to WAIT until in full compliance with the RO BEFORE leaving Canada again and BEFORE making an application for a new PR card.
The very, very best H&C case is NO guarantee. The closest to a guarantee a PR can get is to avoid any RO determination until AFTER the PR is in compliance with the RO.
Typical events triggering RO determination include:
-- PoE examination upon returning to Canada
-- application abroad for a PR Travel Document
-- application for a new PR card
(There are other transactions with IRCC that MIGHT trigger a RO determination, such as sponsoring a family class PR application.)
For a PR in breach of the RO, avoiding any of these UNTIL after staying in Canada long enough to get into compliance is the SAFE way to save PR status.
BUT that approach will not work for everyone. You indicate it will not work for you. As discussed in this topic, yes, a PR in breach can proceed with a PR card application and make the H&C case hoping IRCC will allow the PR to keep status based on H&C reasons. There is ALWAYS some risk doing this.
Moreover, except for a very few narrow situations, that RISK is at least substantial. Even the BEST H&C case tends to be TRICKY and almost all (but for the few exceptions) can be DIFFICULT to successfully make.
You describe your H&C case as " . . .
we seem to have a strong case for H and C grounds . . . "
Example of a not-so-difficult "strong" H&C case: PR lived in Canada for many years as a child, but was removed by one parent attendant a separation of the parents, and has been abroad for less than four years (but longer than three, so is in breach of the RO), and now upon attaining independence at age 18 is seeking to return to Canada to live with the other parent and with younger siblings. Fairly easy case. Rather strong H&C case. Establishment in Canada: check. Family ties in Canada: check. Reason for being abroad was not something the PR could control (not a personal choice): check. Consideration for the best interests of a child affected by the determination: check (impact of separation from minor siblings). That would be about as strong a case one could have. But even the removed-as-a-minor H&C case begins to get tricky and can get difficult where many of the collateral factors are not present (PRs who never really lived much at all in Canada, and that was a long, long time ago; and otherwise have minimal or no current ties in Canada).
Needed to remain with a parent abroad cases do NOT tend to be strong H&C cases, depending however on other important factors, the key ones being HOW LONG the breach is, HOW LONG it took to relocate to Canada along with what reasons there are for any delay in this. Among other factors.
Which leads to recognizing NO ONE here can reliably weigh all the relevant factors and reliably offer a definitive opinion about the outcome if you proceed to make an application for a new PR card and assert H&C reasons for the failure to comply with the RO. There is NO WAY to know in advance what the outcome will be.
We know certain factors which can increase the RISK of a negative outcome. Leaving Canada soon to work abroad, for example.
We know certain factors which can improve your chances. Staying in Canada pending the application and, if necessary, an appeal. (BUT if you could stay in Canada, again the better course would be to NOT apply for a new PR card, but just stay and wait until you are in compliance.)
BUT NO ONE here can reliably weigh all the relevant factors (especially since no one here can reasonably be informed as to the precise nature of all the relevant factors, and this is not an appropriate venue for attempting to share that level of personal information).
Moreover, there is a tendency here to misjudge what "counts" or does "not count," failing to understand just how fluid and encompassing the H&C analysis is in PR RO compliance cases.
A LAWYER should be able to offer much more than anyone here can offer. But that can get expensive.
BOTTOM-LINE: Best approach to keep PR status, IF NOT YET REPORTED, is to stay and wait.
Otherwise, take your best shot at the H&C case, putting forward your case as persuasively as you can. That means documenting things like medical conditions with letters and reports and such from DOCTORS. Basically presenting all your reasons for not coming to Canada to stay sooner, and emphasizing your plans and intentions all along were to relocate to Canada and settle PERMANENTLY in Canada as soon as you reasonably could manage to do that (assuming this is TRUE . . . be very, very careful to be totally honest, totally truthful . . . little will sabotage the H&C case more than appearing to be evasive or in any way untruthful).
