Only you can decide of course. And it depends what you mean by 'considered' - if you were banking on all residency obligations being formally forgiven and announced and everyone gets PR cards renewed and some blanket two or three year forgiveness period for all travel at the ports of entry, you probably will be disappointed.
But: under law, cbsa/ircc - and the IAD on appeal - shall give consideration to factors like covid. So far there have not really been any [covid-related] residency obligation type cases to have gone through the appeals process (with published decisions).
Consider this: to be 'strict' on RO issues during covid, government lawyers would have to go to IAD on appeal and (hypothetically) argue that government imposed flight bans, govenrment-imposed isolation and quarantine regimes (paid in hotels at penalty of serious fines and/or requirement to stay in govt facilities), inter-provincial travel restrictions, "lockdowns" of various types, vaccine mandates, etc., are somehow not developments that are out of control of the PR and not worthy of humanitarian and compassionate consideration. (Not to mention things that were worsened under covid for many, like family emergencies, requirement to care for sick family members, concern about health impacts/exposure on the PRs themselves, increased deaths and hospitalizations worldwide, economic disruption and uncertainty, etc).
Even leaving aside all that: for approximately 18 months, government of Canada had effectively blaring warnings and banners in almost all international travel-related communications, veritably shouting "do not travel unless absolutely necessary and essential!" (That 'essential' term had parallels in govt orders-in-council). The appeals and review processes (and courts if it comes to it) would simply mock govt reps that attempted to deny that these are factors that must be taken into consideration.
And CBSA officers can reason backwards and understand well that pursuing a large volume of reports for those that have a well-founded argument about covid restricting their ability to comply with the RO is a waste of time and resources.
Now, there are clearly going to be cases where 'because covid!' is not going to be sufficient. Someone out-of-Canada for 10 years cannot plausibly claim that this is all due to covid. (Although it could be a factor for part of that time)
Anecdotal info here from those returning out of compliance is that there are few being reported overall, and very few whose non-compliance is relatively short and overlaps with period of covid (like yours). Possibly none reported here.
Even those returning with valid PR cards in first five years and much more out of compliance than you (i.e. very little time in Canada during validity of new PR card) get through without being reported - one this reported being "grilled" at secondary (asked a lot of questions) and then being let in without being reported, basically nothing more than a warning.
But: that's not a guarantee and we cannot say; even discussion of 'probabilities' is bounded by the fact that ultimately it matters what happens in your case and not how good or bad your ex ante 'chances' are.
Govt could attempt to be more strict within current law - but would still be bound by current appeals procedures. Govt could change the law to be more strict - but zero indication it has any such intention (and clearly at odds with current immigration targets anyway), nor that there is some groundswell of "be harder on PRs" policy preference from any of the opposition parties (those in parliament, anyway). No-one has any appetite to tackle this particular issue and make major changes (either way) and so the relatively lenient but sometimes burdensome current regime will likely continue.
Last edited:
