I'm glad both you and your acquaintances have not had issues with this. It does seem that enforcement of this guidance/rule (or whatever you want to call it) is not strict. Whether that is a function of covid or just general disregard, I have no idea; and it's entirely possible that at any point IRCC could decide to enforce more strictly.
Where I (in the main) disagree is whether the law being subjective has any practical benefit for those who might get caught up in the rule - i.e. it's one thing to say "this rule is not strictly enforceable" if the only meaningful form of legal redress is to end up in a multi-year and costly legal challenge. (Or in other words, if IRCC did decide to enforce this rule, in the vast majority of cases the quickest practical way to proceed would be to apply again).
Therefore, I still believe that the only conservative advice is to say - for any sponsors or applicants who ask - that the regulations/instructions to IRCC staff is quite clear: short trips only. After that - it's up to the sponsor and applicant to decide whether they are willing to bear that risk.
Other than that 'practical conservative advice point of view' - I don't care, doesn't affect me.
A few minor points:
-I have noted consistently that advice on the basis that "I'm still paying taxes in Canada" or "I'm still a resident for tax purposes" is simply wrong from a legal perspective - the law does not reference or use those terms. In other words, IRCC can decide that a PR is no longer resident in Canada. (If the sponsor/applicant wants to rely on that idea, fine - but it's not supported in the text).
-Historically IRCC has had much less direct information about whether a sponsor is physically in Canada or not. That has now changed. IRCC has very good information about entries and exits. Therefore, anecdotal information from before may no longer be applicable.
-I don't trust a lot of information from 'consultants.' Some of them might very well have a lot of experience; others frankly are hacks and make stuff up. (Some of them are outright frauds who specialise in trying to get around the rules - but let's be charitable and assume we're only talking about those involved in honest business who may just be wrong). Most importantly: it is not the consultant's problem if their advice turns out to be wrong.
Hope this helps. As I said - not my problem. I think the terms and intent of the law and the regs are fairly clear, and the idea that legal recourse (i.e. appeals) would help is just wrong.
I think conservative guidance is the most 'responsible.' If sponsors/applicants want to rely upon lax historical enforcement, that's their decision - and they may well be right, most of the time (I don't know). If they want to rely on specious legal arguments (eg about tax residency), that's also their decision, even if clearly wrong.
