Hello all,
And thank you for the advice. I will not risk this, and will remain in Canada within the restrictions till my parents get approved.
Furthermore, I have dug deep into the meaning of resident in Canada for the IRCC, and my findings are posted on this thread
I read through this and two of the decisions that are linked, and it's very much worth reading. Most helpful that you linked these as I had not seen.
Based on this, I stand by my previous points (overall): the 'tax resident' argument is thoroughly buried, that is not the test they apply; the test they courts apply is actually fairly extensive (and I assume that IRCC internally uses
some version of these tests even if in some modified or short form); being resident in Canada
when you submit the application is actually a pretty hard stop; and some others overall that basically boil down to does the person appear to reside in Canada (employment, place to live, more ties un Canada than outside, etc) - but esp including physical presence.
Most controversially: the tests the courts/IAD apply is
not limited to a simple 'short trips' heuristic, although 'short trips' may be a quite decent short cut to understanding cases where IRCC might start to consider whether the sponsor is resident in Canada or look into whether other aspects of these tests are met. The cases
that I have seen where residency is questioned or decided against the sponsor all seem to have at their core a fact pattern of the sponsor either not being in Canada when application submitted, OR the sponsor being away for extended periods (multiple months, three months or more) and continuously, not periodic shorter trips. And to be blunt, most cases where the sponsor does not appear to be resident in Canada by any test, with only periodic
presence in Canada during the [refused] sponsorship period.
Going back to your case: I think it is overly cautious to conclude that you cannot risk any travel abroad during your trip. But I don't blame you for not wishing to risk it and being cautious overall - it's what I'd recommend given the consequences even if I don't think two or three two week trips is all that risky (as informed by reading those cases).
And important to note: appealing a spnsorship refusal on this basis for a spousal sponsorship is mostly a non-starter, because it will almost always be quicker and more certain for the sponsor to return to Canada and sponsor anew. For a PGP app - appeal might be more of a possibility but the consequences of losing much more of a problem, because 'applying anew' would mean waiting for the lottery process to pick the sponsor again (and might well mean never).