At the risk of belaboring this more than necessary, some further clarifications:
Despite some Federal Court decisions in effect curtailing CIC/IRCC further screening of PRs after the issuance of a new PR card has been approved and actually issued (at least one explicitly ruled that once the card is issued, the card must be delivered and cannot be withheld even if CIC/IRCC determines the PR subsequently, before being delivered the new card, is in breach of the RO, such as during an interview to pick up the card), it is apparent that IRCC continues to screen some PRs for RO compliance before actually delivering a new PR card. Explaining how and why, what underlies what appears to be a discrepancy between what Federal Courts have decided the law is and what IRCC continues to do, is complicated.
In part, but only in part, this appears to be about the fact that in these kinds of cases Federal Court decisions do not establish binding precedent outside the actual case being decided (this is a huge problem in other areas; one we have discussed is the interpretation and application of the exception for accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad, regarding which there are at least three distinct versions of what the law is in the Federal Court decisions, and different IAD panels choose and apply the version they think is correct, which does not so much as scratch the surface of what approach CBSA and IRCC immigration officers employ). Another example: IRCC's approach to requiring the application be made in Canada; a Federal Court has explicitly ruled that IRCC cannot decline to process a PR card application based on it having been made from abroad, but IRCC continues to state the application must be made in Canada and to in one way or another at least delay processing the application not only if it was made when the PR was outside Canada but oft times when IRCC perceives the PR is outside Canada after making the PR card application.
What this means practically is that despite a decision to approve the application, and to issue a new PR card, IRCC might not treat that as a final decision pending further examination. There are many reports, including showing up in IAD decisions, about PRs issued a new PR card, and even being scheduled for taking an oath of citizenship following an approval of their citizenship application, where it is clear IRCC perceived the PR to be abroad and was in effect waiting for the PR to either apply for a PR Travel Document or arrive at a Port-of-Entry, in effect planning for a review of the PR's status then.
So I did not mean to gloss over the potential significance of the PR card not yet being actually delivered.
For perspective, in CONTRAST, here is a recent report by a forum participant living abroad, granted citizenship, and just returning to Canada to attend an oath ceremony:
It is difficult to clearly map this terrain, to articulately discern let alone describe all the potentially influential factors and nuances. This is aggravated more than a little by variations and vagaries in the decisions made, and then similarly in the decisions made by the IAD. Reading IAD decisions demands much caution. The panel members are not lawyers, let alone judges, but rather they are at best bureaucrats engaged in administrative adjudication, sometimes referred to as quasi-judicial decision making. Many are often more clumsy in their language than I am.
Some situations are easier to assess than others. Sometimes guessing is purely guessing. Sometimes we can make an informed guess. And oft times it is somewhere in-between.
More About PR card Applications Short of Compliance:
We know that is risky. It is risky enough to avoid doing it if at all possible, EVEN when the PR is confident in their H&C case (with some exceptions . . . like some, not all but in many of the PR removed as a minor scenarios).
So I rarely suggest and even more rarely would encourage an applicant to apply for a new PR card if they are not in compliance with the RO.
But I suspect it is common and for many it is no problem . . . with the caveat that this is less likely, perhaps not at all likely, for those egregiously in breach of the RO and who, for example, will still be way in breach four or six months down the road even if they continuously remain in Canada in the meantime.
My impression is that being IN Canada, and appearing to be settled IN Canada, here to stay, goes a long way as long as, again, the PR is not egregiously in breach of the RO. This is difficult to document. It is a bit about reading what is not there, meaning there are not that many reports nor IAD cases about PRs subject to 44(1) Reports based on a PR card application when short, again, except in the more blatantly egregious cases. My strong impression is that, short of approval, the typical outcome for the PR who is short (but not by a huge margin) is non-routine processing and delays in decision-making, oft times in effect waiting to see if the PR goes abroad in the meantime, which will trigger a RO examination if or when the PR applies for a PR TD to return to Canada or otherwise arrives at a PoE.
The rules are the rules, of course. And IRCC is charged with enforcing the rules as they are. So I am in no way suggesting it would be a good idea to apply for a new PR card while not in compliance with the RO. But as I noted before, as important as the numbers are (days in Canada, days outside), factors related to ties in Canada and especially degree of actually settling in Canada can have a big impact, and it is apparent quite often do have a big impact, on how things go.
