Foremost, FOLLOW the instructions. With some exceptions (such as where information provided needs supplemental information to clarify it, to avoid being misleading for example), it is best to submit what is requested and NO MORE. Better to not include what is typically called "proof," for example, other than what the checklist specifies.
Regarding what to submit to claim credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, last I reviewed the forms (looking at the IMM 5444 (02-2019) version and item 22, situation 1), all you need to submit is proof of the relationship (marriage certificate for example) and proof of the spouse's Canadian citizenship (copy of passport identification pages or certificate of citizenship) and list the dates, address, and number of days you were living together abroad.
Overall, in the usual case, qualifying for the
accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit simply requires showing there is --
-- a marital relationship with
-- a Canadian citizen spouse, and
-- you were living together abroad
THE POSSIBILITY OF A WHO-ACCOMPANIED-WHOM ISSUE:
Generally I defer to qualified professionals. And given what you have been advised, that strongly suggests there is a low probability you will have a problem getting the credit for days abroad that you and your citizen spouse were living together. (I may be a bit at odds with other forum participants in this regard.)
If the lawyer was as adamant there is no possible
who-accompanied-whom issue, none at all possible (if the couple are living together), as it seems you might saying, that may be a little bit disconcerting. Obviously we know, from official sources, that sometimes
who-accompanied-whom can be considered and make a difference. I have cited and linked several such OFFICIAL sources.
It makes a difference if the lawyer was saying:
there is no who-accompanied-whom question at all for any PRs (abroad with citizen spouse)
versus
YOU, in your situation, do NOT need to worry about a who-accompanied-whom issue
As noted, we know the first of these is not true. The latter, in contrast, may be a well-founded assessment of your situation in particular.
It is probably safe to still say
(notwithstanding some possible trend-indicators there is increased attention and consideration given to this issue) that why the couple are abroad (such as, who has the job that leads the couple to live abroad) is NOT asked, NOT considered, NOT relevant . . . IN MOST CASES.
BUT how it goes in the individual case does not depend on how things go in most cases. It depends on the facts and circumstances in the individual case.
With the exception of some isolated anecdotal examples, involving CBSA officials at a PoE rather than IRCC officials, the cases in which the
who-accompanied-whom issue is addressed, and applied against the PR, tend to be the more extreme examples in which it is quite apparent the PR was not at all established in Canada, let alone settled in Canada, and it is readily apparent the citizen moved abroad to be with the PR abroad . . . cases which quite likely are seen as overt abuse of the system. In most, egregiously so.
So the individual facts in your case matter. Despite the apparent "trend" there is little or no sign that IRCC is increasingly focused on generally evaluating
who-accompanied-whom whenever a PR claims the
accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit. Neither the PR card application or the PR Travel Document application ask for information regarding
who-accompanied-whom or information about why the couple is living abroad.
Among factors which may influence whether the
who-accompanied-whom question even arises is whether the travel or absence history shows the couple traveling abroad together (not necessarily the same time, but relatively close in time) . . . in contrast, for example, to circumstances in which it appears the citizen spouse was living in Canada while the PR was living abroad, and the citizen spouse appears (based on timing) to have moved abroad to be with the PR. The latter can be seen to have raised the red flag leading to a negative approach to this credit.
ALL THAT SAID . . . the facts you describe suggest your situation could be a closer-call than what it appears the lawyer(s) have opined.
Hard to forecast since you have significantly more days actually IN Canada than PRs had in the vast majority of the actual cases officially reported where the
who-accompanied-whom issued loomed problematically, but few enough to be within the range of some of those cases.
I am not suggesting you share additional details here to facilitate further analysis of your personal situation. This is not a suitable venue for obtaining that sort of personal evaluation and advice.
Which leads to your last query:
That sort of analysis and advice is WAY outside what can be reasonably relied on in a venue like this. Many more details are important. Too many to share here. Too many variables and contingencies for anyone here to offer an opinion about this that can be relied on much if at all.
Delay Getting New PR card Before Going Abroad Again; Being Abroad Without a Valid PR card:
At the least, it is likely you will not be getting a new PR card again for some time, and a significant risk you will encounter some level of non-routine processing that delays getting the new PR card before you need to go abroad again. There is a significant risk you will be one of those who needs to pick-up the card in person (not mailed directly to you).
Assuming you will need a PR Travel Document to return to Canada if you are abroad without a valid PR card, note that the visa offices abroad seem to be more strict in evaluating these questions than IRCC in Canada.
In contrast, if you can travel to Canada via the U.S. after your PR card expires and you have not received a new card, the risk of this issue causing a problem at the PoE could depend on whether you and your spouse are traveling together.
OVERALL . . . given the lawyer's advice, given a history tending to show you are in the process of getting established in Canada, given significant presence in Canada and current presence in Canada, it is probably fair to say you have good odds there will NOT be a serious problem, and very good odds of a H&C alternative even if the
who-accompanied-whom issue looms problematically. And in any event the fall-back get-sponsored-for-PR if necessary option.
I would caution, nonetheless, even if you get a new PR card without much problem, remember the PR Residency Obligation is ongoing and even with a new PR card, and particularly if you are not traveling with your spouse upon arrival in Canada, you could encounter a PoE examination about RO compliance and the
who-accompanied-whom issue could be a factor in how that goes.
