Concur in thumbs-up so long as there is NO travel planned in the near future, at least none other than brief trips.
Otherwise, a more conservative view:
The conventional wisdom still applies: best approach is to wait to make a PR card application until in compliance with the RO based on days present in Canada (that is, not counting credit for future days on the calendar until the fifth year anniversary of landing).
A big part of what makes that the conventional wisdom is that it is simple and straightforward, not subject to conditions or contingencies. No complicated calculations necessary: when the days in Canada since landing
AND within the previous five years (again,
BOTH) total at least 730 days, the PR is demonstrably in RO compliance.
Then as long as they PR does not go outside Canada for a period of time resulting in having been IN Canada fewer than 730 days within the previous five years, there is no RO breach, no risk of inadmissibility.
Beyond that, the variables are many, and the nature and extent of risks also varies considerably.
The headliner risk is loss of PR status. There is
NO risk of this if the PR is in RO compliance as of the day an application for a new PR card is made (as is the case discussed here)
AND the PR continues, thereafter, to be in RO compliance. So, if that is the only risk of concern,
@CanadianDreamer@TO can safely proceed with the application . . . again, so long as there are no subsequent absences that result in failing to comply with the RO.
But concerns about the timeline are generally tethered to either planned or potential travel abroad (there is no timeline concern if no travel outside Canada is likely for a good long while). In which cases, when and for how long are key factors. We know for example (acknowledging there is some dissent regarding this), that an extended period of time abroad while a PR card application is in process increases the risk of non-routine processing. How much so, we do not know.
Further Observations:
I disagree that the discussion about what is a "
good idea" took a "
semantics" detour. Recognizing the scope of contingencies and variable factors in how these things go, and that the actual facts in an individual case can (and often will) make a big difference, but also recognizing it is extremely difficult to quantify the odds, means that what is a good idea for one PR may not be a good idea for another PR even though their circumstances are quite similar. That's not semantics, that is recognizing different PRs can (and, again, many will) have different experiences, different outcomes.
Moreover, it warrants remembering that there is significant variability in the risks themselves, and what is at stake for particular PRs also varies. Note, for example, being outside Canada without a valid PR card can pose a more serious risk for some PRs compared to others. PRs who can travel via the U.S., for example, are only risking the inconvenience of traveling through the U.S. For a PR who cannot travel via the U.S. and who has a job in Canada they need to return to within a tight time frame, ending up having to suffer a potentially slow application process to obtain a PR TD could cost them their job. For some, shrug, there's another job readily available. For others, losing their job could be harsh or even devastating.
For those who choose or are compelled to do some colouring outside the lines (those who cannot always stay in RO compliance, or those needing to travel outside Canada without a valid PR card in possession), that is personal decision-making country, an individual judgment call.
