We have now realised that we won't be able to fulfill the residency obligation of being in Canada for 730 days.
It is very difficult to forecast how things will go upon arrival in Canada. A lot depends on your specific circumstances. It appears you have been a PR for at least nearly four years, but not much more than that, so there is a fair chance, so far as can be discerned based on sporadic anecdotal reporting, you will be waived through upon your arrival here, that is to say, not be what is typically referred to as "
Reported" when you arrive.
But how that goes can vary, and how it actually goes will determine your options and be a big factor to consider in what decisions you make going forward.
It bears noting with some emphasis that since you were last in Canada more than three years ago, you not only are unable to fulfill the PR Residency Obligation,
you are currently in breach of the RO, which meets the definition of what makes a PR "
inadmissible." Moreover, the three plus years absence makes it rather obvious to border officials that you have breached the RO.
There is thus also a fair chance you might NOT be "
waived" through upon your arrival here, but rather subject to a formal RO compliance examination and following the preparation of a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility, due to a breach of the RO, issued a Removal or Departure Order, which is a decision terminating PR status (subject to appeal).
Even though "
inadmissible," you will be allowed into Canada; question is whether or not you are Reported and issued a Removal Order. If that happens you still get to enter Canada and can appeal the Report and Removal Order.
Thus, in regards to . . .
Key points:
* I have to be compliant with RO before I apply for my son's PR
* Health coverage would be an issue - but I presume that can be covered by taking a health insurance.
* Schooling would be an issue - he is now only 2.5 years old - so not a problem
* Yes, I checked on how long he can stay using an eTA - with a visa free travel he can stay for 6 months in one go even though they get 5 year valid eTA. Not sure what to do after 6 months though.
Considering all the above I think best to wait until we become RO compliant.
While you stated upfront "
We are willing to take the risk of being reported and come anyway . . . " it bears noting with emphasis that
the overriding key is how it goes at the PoE upon your arrival. Whether or not you encounter a more formal RO compliance examination could make a big difference, all the difference.
Something which tends to get glossed over in this forum is the difference between being casually waived into Canada without a formal RO compliance examination, despite being in breach of the RO, versus how it goes if there is a formal RO compliance examination.
If casually waived through, you are good to stay. When to make the sponsored PR visa application for your child is a matter you can evaluate AFTER arrival, after seeing how it goes at the PoE, recognizing that the safest approach is to wait until you are in compliance with the RO before making that application.
Since you still have valid PR cards, that makes the transition to living in Canada, and staying, relatively easy. Health care for the child could be an issue if there are serious health care issues, but otherwise there is no compelling reason to apply for the child's PR without waiting to get into RO compliance. That is, if you are waived into Canada without being Reported, probably better to wait to sponsor the child's PR rather than press your luck relying on H&C relief if the sponsorship application triggered a RO compliance examination.
Note/Caution: H&C cases are generally difficult cases. Setting aside what appears to be current border control leniency, in significant part most likely related to informal (unwritten) pandemic policy which could end any day or not provide relief to a particular individual, it is not clear how much more lenient, if at all, CBSA or IRCC is when making a formal H&C case determination.
Best to avoid relying on H&C relief if that is at all practically feasible. That is, the strongest H&C case is never as secure as avoiding transactions with IRCC and CBSA until one is actually in compliance with the RO.
Sure, there are situations in which the H&C case is very strong and other circumstances more or less compel relying on the H&C case.
Indeed, this is in effect a key factor underlying a decision to return to Canada despite being inadmissible, anticipating the odds of being allowed to keep PR status despite breaching the RO are good enough to make the trip planning to stay here. A key circumstance underlying this is the lack of other options for keeping PR status. That is, you cannot avoid a transaction with CBSA (applying for entry into Canada by arriving at a PoE) if you want to keep PR status, so to have a chance of keeping PR status you need to come relying on H&C relief.
So, BE PREPARED to present your H&C case upon your arrival. If your H&C case depends on documents, be sure to carry those documents in your hands, not in checked baggage. No need to make an elaborate case, but be prepared to present the reasons why you were abroad so long and were unable to make the move to Canada sooner, and present what ties you currently have in Canada (immediate family, like parents, is a good positive factor).
BUT here's the rub, how it actually goes at the PoE can and likely will matter . . . getting back to the difference between being casually waived through versus undergoing a more thorough, formal RO compliance examination. The vast majority of anecdotal reporting about inadmissible PRs being allowed to enter Canada without being "Reported" appears to be about PRs casually waived through, many waived through at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) with minimal RO related questions, the others allowed to proceed into Canada after some questioning, maybe an admonition about RO compliance, but not subjected to a formal RO determination.
The odds seem fairly good the latter is how it will go for you. NO guarantees however. Moreover, the extent to which this has been happening the last year plus is almost certainly related to a pattern of Covid-related leniency, a recognition that many PRs have remained abroad longer than planned due to Covid (not just due to government imposed travel restrictions, but also the difficulties involved in moving during the pandemic).
This is NOT going to last. And there will be no notice there is a change in policy, largely because this leniency is probably not formal policy so there will be no formal change in policy when border officials are less lenient in screening arriving PRs who are inadmissible (that is, in breach of the RO).
The problem is the public, and those of us in this forum, will not see indications that border officials are trending back to more normal-times enforcement of RO compliance for PRs returning to Canada after lengthy absences, not until well after the fact, not until more than a few have run into stricter enforcement, enough so we begin to see some anecdotal reporting of this in the forum. It will take longer, a lot, lot longer for this to show up in official sources, like IAD decisions, since those tend to be many months if not a year or more later.
Very, very hard to forecast when this will happen. It may have already happened. Or at least, the scope of leniency may already be shrinking.
In any event, if you benefit from lenient screening or an otherwise positive pass at the PoE, THEN reassess whether and when to proceed with a sponsored PR application for the child, taking into consideration that if waiting is practical, it is almost always better to wait than proceed with an application that could trigger a RO compliance examination and relying on H&C relief.
NOTE: while posts by the jakkassistic American interloper, who clearly has no real experience or understanding of Canadian PR issues, are sometimes peppered with some good information, the good stuff is a front, a beard, and it is obviously all gleaned (stolen) from other posts here by knowledgeable veteran members of this forum, but often posted out of context or otherwise with little or no grasp for how things really work. The observations about emergency care, for example, are off the charts nonsense. Parents of a child receiving care will be liable for the costs. Those can be huge and financially crippling. Emergency care is limited in scope and does not include anywhere near all necessary medical care let alone preferred, what is better care. And so on. Best to ignore that source. 
