We all make assumptions but there are always edge cases/boundary conditions. Where is the line in the sand?
One question that I have not yet seen a clear answer to, with citations, is this.
"Does airside, or the equivalent for a land border, count as 'in Canada' or not, being the 'other side of the border'?"
Likewise for the USA pre-clearance areas at places like Pearson. What about the Vimy Ridge memorial site?
I'd categorize the question as academic at best, clearly NOT having much if any practical concern.
BUT I understand where the question comes from. I realize more than a few prefer a definitive answer about whether a specific day counts.
And a good answer illuminates some key considerations prospective applicants would be prudent to consider in how they approach making the decision about WHEN to apply (including how much of a buffer to have, for example).
When it comes to questions like this it is my impression that many make the mistake of focusing too intently on technicalities.
Like drivers who decide to turn on their headlights based on the precise minute it is a half hour past sunset (where the rule is that headlights must be illuminated no later than a half hour after sunset). In practice (and many if not most jurisdictions have rules to this effect), when whether to turn on headlights also depends on whether it is raining, snowing, cloudy, foggy, or the roadway is on the shadowy side of a mountain.
Let us be clear: if there is no doubt about the date of an exit, safe to say that's the date. If there is no doubt about the date of entry, safe to say that is the date. Report accordingly.
Situations in which there is some reason to not be sure are RARE.
Note that in-airspace is NOT such a situation; time in airspace is easy: Not relevant. The date of entry is date the PoE officer allows the traveler to enter (you are not in Canada until you have been allowed to enter Canada) . . . that is, the same as the date stamped in a passport or the date that would have been stamped if the border official did stamp the passport. That's the same entry date that should show up in the CBSA travel history. Exit dates are almost as easy: the date when one passed the PoE station leaving Canada by road, or the date when the flight is scheduled to depart the airport headed to a destination outside Canada.
Moreover, for example, if the plane is scheduled to depart before midnight, do not count the next day just because the plane sat on the tarmac waiting to take off until after midnight. Similarly, sitting on the tarmac before midnight, upon arrival here, waiting for a gate to open so passengers can depart the plane, does not count if actual PoE clearance is after midnight. (Sure, someone can argue it should count. Don't bother.)
Perhaps the Pearson to U.S. situation is indeed technically an exception. No doubt in my mind it would be OK to approach this the same as any other flight leaving Canada . . . even though the U.S. entry record, which IRCC might obtain through information sharing, will likely show date of entry into U.S. based on clearance done at Pearson, date of scheduled departure should readily suffice and of course a buffer would easily render this a non-issue.
If there is some reason to not be sure:
(1) report the last for sure date IN Canada as the date of exit, and
(2) report the next for sure date IN Canada as the date of entry.
The odds are very, very high that these dates will correspond to any other information IRCC has. So, the odds are very high these dates will not conflict with or be inconsistent with any other information IRCC has.
If these days are off by a day compared to information IRCC has, it will not be off by a day that costs the applicant any days in the presence calculation (again, possible exception for the Pearson to U.S. situation, but again a buffer would easily render this a non-issue),
AND IRCC is NOT going to blink. NO PROBLEM. And that is what the prudent applicant is pursuing, NO PROBLEMS. NO DOUBTS. NO CONCERNS.
For the prospective applicant who is trying to maximize days by counting this or that individual day for which there could be some question, all one can say is DON'T DO IT. (Sure, someone can argue this or that day should count. Again, don't bother.)
For the prospective applicant who is trying to maximize days by counting this or that individual day for which there could be some question, AND SUCH A DAY WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, all one can say is
DON'T DO IT and say it MORE EMPHATICALLY.
AND DEFINITELY HAVE A BUFFER WELL ABOVE ANY DAYS WHICH CAN BE QUESTIONED.
The latter goes for status as well. Those casual weekends and maybe some week long holidays spent in Canada prior to becoming a PR, when entry into Canada was based on a visa-exempt passport and there is NO formal documentation like a Visitor's Record or TRV . . .
they count (if within the five year eligibility period) and should be reported in the Presence Calculation . . . but make sure to have a buffer larger than the total of those days. Here too, sure some can and will argue they count so it is OK to rely on them. Here's a clue: there is no practical way to persuasively present what is arguable to IRCC UNLESS and UNTIL IRCC is already questioning something, and that's a non-routine processing track. Relying on such days is a FAST way to SLOW down the process.
Even soft-landing PRs would be prudent to be sure their buffer was well above relying on occasional days in Canada prior to actually coming to stay. (This goes back to relevancy of place of residence.)
WHY; WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL INCLUDING A QUESTIONABLE DAY MAKE?
As I noted, when it comes to questions like this it is my impression that many make the mistake of focusing too intently on technicalities.
So let's be clear about what difference it makes.
Sure, the difference between a total of 1095 days present, versus 1094 or less, is the difference between being qualified or NOT qualified, the difference between a grant of citizenship and being DENIED.
And it is possible this calculation could depend on whether a specific day technically counts. For the vast, vast majority of days, in all but a very narrow range of exceptional situations, it is clear whether the day should count or not count. If in the particular case it comes down to whether a specific day technically counts, if that particular day is one of those for which an argument might be made that it does not count OR if counting it is dependent on an interpretation and argument why it should count even if it is not clear it counts, ODDS ARE HIGH OTHER FACTORS WILL INFLUENCE THE DECISION.
And we should be clear about what decision this is about.
If there is any question or doubt about a day (or days) that would leave the applicant short of 1095 days actually physically present in Canada during the eligibility period, that virtually DEMANDS non-routine RQ related processing. At the least. Trust me: the prudent applicant, and almost all other applicants, do NOT want to go there if that can be avoided.
RQ puts the entirety of the applicant's physical presence into question. When this happens it is NO LONGER ENOUGH to make the case by submitting information and argument convincingly documenting why the particular day(s) in question, those which triggered the RQ, should count. Every month of the eligibility period, during which the applicant claims to have been present in Canada, NEEDS to DOCUMENTED. How much so varies, depending on how much concern IRCC has that the applicant might not have been in Canada at least the required 1095 days . . .
. . . OR, and this is important . . . how much concern IRCC has that the applicant may fall short PROVING all 1095 days present in Canada.
If the calculation comes down to whether the total is 1097 or 1094 days, unless IRCC if rather favourably impressed by the applicant, it will NOT take much concern, much of a question, to decide the applicant has fallen short of PROVING presence for at least 1095 days, and refer the application to a Citizenship Judge. Then applicant gets another shot at it, a chance to persuade the CJ he or she has actually met the burden of PROOF, enough proof to persuade the CJ to count each and every day the applicant claims (all 1095 of them) . . . but that process, at the very least, adds many months, if not more than a year or longer, to the process . . . and if it is that close, again unless the applicant is making a rather favourable impression, a CJ too is likely to ask "why not withdraw and reapply?"
BOTTOM-LINE: IRCC does not focus much on this or that particular day UNLESS there is a reason to do so. And if that is the case, that is NOT good news.
If the applicant's travel history is a day off compared to IRCC's information, that is NO big deal . . . a shrug, or a casual question in the interview . . .
UNLESS it is a big deal: that is, unless it might make the difference between 1095 or more days, versus 1094 or fewer days. Big deal means RQ. And if it is that close, a risk the application will be denied.
I do not mean to discourage anyone who wants to argue their way into a big deal and non-routine processing and a very long processing timeline. Especially if it is likely to end up in an appeal. That is where someone like me gets hard and reliable information about how these things work in practice. I especially like the cases where the Federal Court gets to outline all the various arguments and positions proffered, the Minister's, the CJs, the applicant's, and of course then the Federal Court justice's take.
But for those who are pursuing the fastest and least problematic path to citizenship, WAIT to build a decent buffer, and avoid relying on any possibly questionable dates.
