Apart from the question about BC non-resident speculation tax . . .
For clarification:
By Law, Canadian permanent residents are required to present a valid Canadian permanent resident card or a permanent resident travel document when travelling to Canada.
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1252&top=16
While the FAQ information is generally true, it is incomplete and not correct in certain respects. It glosses over the surface. For example, a valid PR card is only necessary for traveling to Canada that is via commercial transportation. A valid PR card is not necessary to travel to Canada using private transportation.
A valid PR card is not required for entry into Canada.
Making an application for eTA is different. Which brings up misrepresentation. The reason for these clarifications.
For purposes of interactions and transactions with CBSA and IRCC, a failure to disclose material information, deceptively or misleadingly, is misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation by omission (lots and lots of cases illustrating this).
Criminal law procedure is NOT relevant. Among other things, not only is the burden of proof very different, but in the context of interactions and transactions with CBSA and IRCC, the individual has a legal obligation to truthfully present information . . . which means an obligation to affirmatively disclose material information.
Moreover, even though it seems like punishment (such as being deemed inadmissible for misrepresentation, losing PR status and being banned from Canada), generally the consequences for misrepresentation imposed in an immigration context are not considered punishment. So what principles of justice some may think should apply before a penalty can be imposed, those will not apply before a FN or PR can be found to have made material misrepresentations resulting in a loss of status in Canada, at least not in the manner or degree the law in Canada generally requires to justify the imposition of a penalty. Adjudication of an accusation of misrepresentation for immigration purposes is a determination of status, not a process to determine or impose punishment.
Make no mistake, misrepresentation in interactions and transactions with CBSA or IRCC can also be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Misrepresentation can result in a criminal conviction and punishment, ranging from fines to jail time. It is not common. For many reasons, including the burden of proof, including proof of requisite mental intent (
mens rea), in particular with regard to the specific elements which must be proven to establish a crime was committed and the accused committed that crime.
On the other hand, even the allegation and adjudication of misrepresentation for purposes of determining status is not all that common. It happens. Classic example: applicant for citizenship used an Ontario address for his residence when he actually resided, apparently, in Quebec; he did so on the advice of a "
consultant" who said the application would be processed much faster using an Ontario address (consultant also provided an address in Ontario for this, for a fee of course). That was sufficient grounds to deny the citizenship application and result in that individual being prohibited for . . . I forget how many years the prohibition was at that time.
@Naheulbeuck noted another example. One more may be illuminating: PR was formally examined as to RO compliance upon arriving in Canada and made misrepresentations about days in Canada; YEARS later, in processing the PR's application for a new PR card, the earlier misrepresentations at the PoE were grounds for finding that individual inadmissible for misrepresentation in connection with seeking entry into Canada and terminating their PR status, even though they had spent several years in Canada in the meantime.
Nonetheless, such cases generally are the exception, not the norm. Even when it readily appears the individual either made overt misrepresentations or made misrepresentations by omission.
It is far more common for CBSA and IRCC to take note of misrepresentations and consider that when evaluating the individual and whatever matter is being determined. As I have oft reminded, apart from meeting the requirements and following the instructions in completing applications, the next most important factor that determines how a transaction with CBSA or IRCC is likely to go, is the individual's credibility.
Credibility is Huge. A big deal. Those who dismiss, ignore, or even just overlook this, do so very much at their peril.
So, What Does This Mean For @sk4ans?
Again, apart from BC non-resident tax issue . . .
Very hard to predict. There is some RISK. Trying to quantify the risks is highly speculative. I doubt anyone, even a lawyer, can reliably forecast how things will go when there is a formal transaction (application for a new PR card for example) with IRCC. The difference in name on the passport, for example, may or may not pose a significant stumbling block. Depending on the details. The application for eTA may indeed come back to not just haunt the OP but be cause for terminating status for misrepresentation. Question is whether IRCC will pursue that. And that is uncertain.
Presenting the visa-exempt passport at the PoE upon arrival is less likely to be a problem. While misrepresentations in the PoE examination, including by omission, can be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility, it is not likely merely presenting a visa-exempt passport and being allowed to enter Canada ostensibly as a visitor would lead to that. Maybe. Most likely not.
