Caveat: no time to proof-read this post. Probably typos and perhaps some errors, but links should work.
You mentioned some official decisions of real cases on some website? Do you mind linking a few to me?
To find the IAD decisions generally, see
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/
Currently I do not have the time to replicate the research (I am past the deadline to submit a manuscript for my day job -- yeah, even though I am an old man, already collecting the puny retirement benefits I have earned, I am mostly on a
work-until-I-die retirement program). And yeah, I am working on a Sunday evening. (But, actually, it is stuff I really enjoy doing, reading and writing about the law, albeit law which has nothing to do with either Canadian law nor immigration, and notwithstanding the topic I am currently researching and writing about is incredibly dull.)
I will aim you toward some other topics where I have previously discussed and, I think, linked some of the IAD decisions (time flies and I lose track, so the linked decisions may be in older posts) below.
In the meantime, in order to get much out of the official decisions that demands taking some time to become familiar with many of them. Be cautious about deriving conclusions based on individual statements or even whole paragraphs, since context looms huge, and whole paragraphs can state propositions which are actually being rejected.
So, if you are interested in drilling into the official decisions yourself, I suggest going to CanII and doing some research for yourself. Caveat: this is time consuming and demands a diligent, focused effort.
The search interface for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, where Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decisions are published (there are other sites as well, but this is the one I typically use) can be found by following links at the CanII home page, or go to it directly at
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/
Narrowing search results, in order to limit hits to a manageable number, is somewhat difficult because most of the key terms also populate many, many cases which are not about appeals of a Departure Order issued to PRs at a PoE. So, yes, doing the homework can be tedious and time consuming, wading through lots of decisions which will not offer much of what you are looking for.
On the other hand, narrowing the search terms can result in not capturing some of the more significant decisions.
Moreover, many of these decisions do not overtly state some key elements. For example, not all Departure Orders derive from a 44(1) Report issued at a PoE (indeed, not all 44(1) Reports are issued at a PoE), and many (perhaps most) of the Departure Order cases do not identify the specific circumstances in which the Order was issued, that is whether it arose out of a PoE examination, or an IRCC investigation, or an IRCC action taken following a PR card application or some other interaction with IRCC. It can take quite a bit of studying the various decisions to acquire the capacity to recognize context and glean relevant principles.
Thus, in addition to being tedious and time consuming, the search process can also be quite tricky.
Note for example that it is particularly difficult to limit the search results to Departure Orders issued following a PoE examination. Many (perhaps most) of the decisions in the search results are likely to be about the denial of a PR Travel Document application, since for those PRs who can come to Canada pending the appeal of the PR TD a negative decision will typically include the making of a Departure Order. Most of these should be obvious since they will refer to the
decision by a visa officer (or visa official, or such) determining the PR did not meet the PR RO. For me, reading these decisions is relevant, since I am following most aspects of the process for terminating PR status. And you too may find some of these decisions interesting and informative regarding issues related to the making of a Residency Determination and weighing H&C reasons.
Additional reading here in this forum:
Again, I do not have time to replicate the research, and I do not recall in which topics here I have previously linked numerous IAD decisions related to this topic. However, you should be able to peruse relevant topics by taking the link to "find all content by dpenabill" and scrolling through the list for a few pages, looking for topic titles about this or a similar subject. For example, see topics titled:
Entering Canada by land with expired PR card - RO not met
RO not met by the time of entry
POE Question: How Long Have You Been Outside Canada?
PR card Expires before the 730 days required
Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review
Perminent Resident Application, Entry/exit requests
Staying outside with maintaining 731 days
Again, I am not for sure the above are where I posted links to IAD decisions about this issue in particular, but as I recall I have done this within the past two months or so.
If you peruse those topics, you should notice that much of what I posted above in response to your query I have posted before, in some instances in more depth . . . and, hopefully you can also find those posts where I have discussed and linked specific cases.
Search parameters or terms:
While it will result in way too many hits (over a thousand actually), a search based on ["residency obligation" & "departure order"] will generate results containing a large number of the cases relevant to this discussion . . . albeit most will be PR TD denial appeals.
Similarly, ["residency obligation" & "removal order"] will generate a huge number of results, hundreds overlapping the previous results, but also including more than a thousand in addition.
Select the option to sort by "most recent first" to peruse recent cases. For more in-depth, analytical research stick with sorting "By Relevance." I'd recommend most recent and skipping decisions about PR TD appeals, until you are more acquainted with navigating the results.
Recent examples:
OK, I lied. Well, it is true I do not have time to do the research, but I cannot resist doing some (I am obsessive-complusive about this stuff). So, for example:
Here is a very recent (April 5, 2017 decision) PoE case:
http://canlii.ca/t/h3nxb
It is interesting because the review/hearing by the Minister's Delegate did not take place immediately following the issuance of a 44(1) Report at the PoE, but took place by telephone two weeks later.
Another recent (April 4, 2017 decision) see
http://canlii.ca/t/h3r8p
This decision does not offer much information, but it is an example of a case where the PRs were issued the Departure Order at the airport (Montreal). As I have noted in many posts, this procedure appears to be the most common, where there is an examination at the PoE, followed by the 44(1) Report, then while still in the PoE, by the Departure Order. (Note, this decision only specifically refers to their being issued the Departure Order at the airport, not detailing the procedure which led to that . . . this is an example which illustrates why I said it can take reading a lot of these decisions, being familiar with the applicable Operational Manuals, in particular ENF 4 POE examinations, ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports, and ENF 27 Loss of PR Status, as well as with IRPA itself, including in particular, of course, Sections 28 and 44, and the related regulations.
Another recent decision (March 2017) see
http://canlii.ca/t/h3m5z
This case involves PRs issued a Departure Order prior to the 5th year anniversary of the date they became PRs.
They became PRs in December 2009
They were issued Departure Orders in July 2014 at the airport upon arrival from abroad
While this decision does not explicitly state they had valid PR cards at the time of their arrival at the PoE, it is apparent they did. Given the date they became PRs, it is likely their PR cards were valid until January 2015 (or a little later).
So this case probably illustrates PRs being issued a Departure Order (1) notwithstanding presenting valid PR cards at the PoE, which were valid until the next calendar year; and (2) still being within the first five years of landing (fifth year anniversary would have been in December 2014).
This warrants some attention because up until a number of years ago, it appeared that PRs with valid PR cards were at low risk for being examined about PR RO compliance at a PoE, and particularly so for PRs still within the first five years.
But, as much as can be discerned from these cases . . . that depends on being familiar with many, many such cases. These examples derive from barely a month's period of time, so you can readily see that to get a solid grasp of such decisions and what they illuminate, requires reading dozens of such cases going back at least the last couple years.
In any event, there are many, many official decisions to wade through. Different panels give different background information, so to get a broad picture of how these PoE Departure Order cases evolve from the PoE examination, you need to read dozens of those cases in particular.
And, again, it helps to put this information in context if you are also already familiar with the applicable Operational Manuals, in particular ENF 4 POE examinations, ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports, and ENF 27 Loss of PR Status, as well as with IRPA itself, including in particular, of course, Sections 28 and 44, and the related regulations.
For the Operation Manuals, see
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/index.asp and follow links.
For IRPA Section 44, for example, see
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-10.html#h-25
