Medical reasons are considered exceptional when visa or citizenship requirements are considered. Cases are considered compassionately and waivers are applied.
This doesn't apply to normal cases where people are short of residency due to business trips or unless very long period has been passed to prove inability to meet residency days.
I believe this exception came to helping amazing21 as a genuine medical case where supporting documents and proofs were enough.
See below quoted from legislation that governs citizenship:
Section 5(3) gives the Minister discretion to waive some of the requirements for a grant of citizenship on compassionate
grounds.
CMB, who is delegated to act on the Minister's behalf, may waive certain requirements for citizenship on compassionate grounds. This discretionary authority is exercised only in exceptional cases further to having reviewed a person's particular circumstances. For example, an applicant may not be able to meet requirements because of a medical condition or disability. If the request to waive a certain requirement is on the basis of a medical condition or disability, the applicant should be asked to submit a medical opinion provided by their physician attesting to the fact that they are prevented from being able to meet the requirement by reason of their medical condition or disability.
The medical opinion provided by the applicant's physician must therefore provide information relevant to the request for the waiver. The reasons for the waiver recommendation, which may be medical and/or psychological, must be clearly stated in the officer's recommendation for waiver and must be supported by the doctor's report.
There's a good chance that an application without the adequate number of residency days, especially now when the whole procedure is revamped to tighten the process; either a direct return/refusal or end up on RQ and to a hearing with a citizenship judge. Then that case will be assessed under the so-called Reed (Koo) (i.e. "flexible" or "consensus" or "centralized mode of existence") approach, which entails the analysis of the following factors:
The Three Tests of Residency
There are currently three residency tests for citizenship based on the above statute, all of which are legitimate.
The first defines residency narrowly. In Pourghasemi, Justice Muldoon stated that physical residency was required to meet the residency test. In doing so, he stated that the purpose of the residency requirement under the Act was to make sure that applicants:
...at least has been compulsorily presented with everyday opportunity to become “Canadianized”. This happens by “rubbing elbows” with Canadians in shopping malls, corner stores, libraries, concert halls, auto repair shops, pubs, cabarets, elevators, churches, synagogues, mosques and temples – in a word wherever one can meet and converse with Canadians – during the prescribed three years.
The second line of cases is less stringent, and is known as the Papadogiorgakis test. In Papadogiorgakis, then Associate Chief Justice Thurlow drew upon the principles of determining residency for income tax purposes to find that an individual who had only been in Canada for 79 days (far short of 1095) met the residency requirements. His reasoning was that:
A person with an established home of his own in which he lives does not cease to be resident there when he leaves it for a temporary purpose whether on business or vacation or even to pursue a course of study. The fact of his family remaining there while he is away may lend support for the conclusion that he has not ceased to reside there. The conclusion may be reached, as well, even though the absence may be more or less lengthy. It is also enhanced if he returns there frequently when the opportunity to do so arises.
The third test is even more flexible, and allows for greater absence from Canada. Known as the Koo test, this line of jurisprudence is the most commonly used. In Koo, Madam Justice Reed held that residency is where an individual “regularly, normally, or customarily lives.” Relevant factors include analyzing:
(1) was the individual physically present in Canada for a long period prior to recent absences which occurred immediately before the application for citizenship?
(2) where are the applicant's immediate family and dependents (and extended family) resident?
(3) does the pattern of physical presence in Canada indicate a returning home or merely visiting the country?
(4) what is the extent of the physical absences — if an applicant is only a few days short of the 1,095-day total it is easier to find deemed residence than if those absences are extensive?
(5) is the physical absence caused by a clearly temporary situation such as employment as a missionary abroad, following a course of study abroad as a student, accepting temporary employment abroad, accompanying a spouse who has accepted employment abroad?
(6) what is the quality of the connection with Canada: is it more substantial than that which exists with any other country?
