I disagree to an extent. The fact remains, the Immigration Act does not define what "residing in Canada" actually means and case law acknowledges this. Does it mean physical presence only or do other factors (e.g. where ones affairs are centralized) help establish this?
From cases I've read on CanLii and the Federal Court, some Judges have said a sponsor can be absent from Canada but continue to 'reside in Canada' if they have maintained a significant connection to Canada. If the OP still has a house, bank accounts, investments, family, social ties, etc in Canada and can afford a lawyer, I think it's worth pursuing. If she's also a citizen, she has mobility rights and requiring her to be here 100% infringes upon those rights.
If the visa officer did not consider these other factors before arriving at their decision (to refuse sponsorship of her father), that may be sufficient to have the case referred to another officer.
@ambreenK, order your father's GCMS notes here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/requests-atip.asp
You will also need a consent form signed by your Dad: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/form-imm5744.asp
It may help to say which province so that people may be able to recommend. Otherwise, google immigration law firms for your city/province and read the profiles. Goodluck!
Here are some cases: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii78135/2009canlii78135.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAScmVzaWRpbmcgaW4gY2FuYWRhAAAAAAE&resultIndex=8
With respect to the second criteria, the Panel in Lau noted that the test requires more than mere intention:
“For a person who is absent from Canada to continue to ‘reside in Canada' within the definition of ‘sponsor', he must maintain much more of a connection to Canada than simply not having the intention to abandon Canada as a permanent residence.”[5]
[14] A number of factors may be relied upon in order to determine whether a person has maintained a sufficient connection to Canada. They fall into four categories: family ties, residential ties, economic ties and social ties. Again, although this definition of the test was made in a slightly different context, it remains relevant to the case at bar in that the same criteria can serve to assess whether the evidence indicates that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant intends to reside in Canada if the applicant becomes a permanent resident.
The Panel does not agree with the submission made by the Minister's counsel that the appeal should be dismissed among other reasons because the appellant has no intention to permanently reside in Canada, but only until such time when his daughter is eligible for Canadian citizenship. As a Canadian citizen, the appellant is not required to live in Canada permanently. His undertaking as a sponsor is for a period of ten years[8] and presumably shorter since the intention of the applicant is to apply for Canadian citizenship as soon as she becomes eligible. Therefore the fact that he may not live in Canada beyond such period is not a negative factor in this case.
Here's a case where the appeal was allowed: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2006/2006canlii60887/2006canlii60887.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAScmVzaWRpbmcgaW4gY2FuYWRhAAAAAAE&resultIndex=13
