Upfront: these are complicated issues, many aspects of the law are relatively new and not yet fully interpreted by the Courts. In fact, in both the cases linked above by PMM, the Justices certified questions for further review.
IRPA Section 108 termination of refugee status has only applied to Permanent Residents since the 2012 amendment to IRPA Section 46, which added subsection 46(1)(c.1) pursuant to which a final determination that refugee status has ceased (per section 108) terminates PR status.
It is unclear to what extent the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is pursuing cases against Permanent Residents who have made brief trips to the country from which they initially sought protection. More than a few, yes, but how many are targeted, who, and why (beyond just the technicalities of who the Minister can take such action against) is not at all clear.
I suggest consulting with an immigration lawyer SOONER rather than later.
Again, these are complicated issues. The law is far from settled. There is no automatic termination of refugee status arising from a visit to one's home country, but rather the Public Safety Minister (could also be the Minister of CIC) needs to take affirmative action to bring an application
and also bears the burden of proof.
On the other hand, it appears that it is
not likely there are H&C grounds excusing actions rising to the level of having "reavailed" oneself "of the protection of their country of nationality." (H&C grounds could still be raised if a Removal Order or Departure Order is sought, once status is lost, but that is a separate matter.)
But it warrants emphasizing again that this is new law, with lots of wrinkles, with a lot of questions of interpretation and application yet to be sorted out by the Refugee Protection Board and the Federal Courts.
As the two cases referenced by PMM reflect: very different outcomes depending on the particular circumstances and facts in the case.
Which leads to the observation that there was
NO Removal Order (as yet anyway) in at least one of these cases.
In particular, actually, in the
Najeeb Bashir case, there was
NO Removal Order, and the Minister's application to terminate Bashir's refugee status was
denied by the Board and in turn that was upheld by Justice Bédard, although she did certify a question to be considered in a further appeal to a higher court.
Thus, as of the decision (linked above and by PMM), Bashir's status in Canada was still intact and valid. (Bashir was
not a Permanent Resident, and indeed it was apparently his application for PR status which triggered the Ministers' action to terminate protected status.)
BUT it is of little comfort for the OP, since Bashir's case did not involve
any visits to his home country, but merely the renewal of his passport.
The other case linked by PMM above is the opposite, and perhaps closer to the OP's situation.
Obaildullah Siddiqui also obtained a passport from his home country but also
traveled to his home country three times, as well as using the passport to travel to other countries. The Ministers made an application to terminate his status as a Convention refugee, and the Refugee Protection Board ruled against Siddiqui. The crux of Siddiqui's appeal was that Section 108 of IRPA only applies to Convention refugees, of which he was not one (rather he was granted protected person status based on H&C grounds). Justice S. Noël denied the appeal, sided with the government,
but also certified a question for further appeal.
In any event, for the OP the more practical question may be what sort of things are likely to trigger the Ministers (either of them) to initiate an application to terminate protected status.
In the
Najeeb Bashir case, apparently it was Bashir's application for PR status which triggered the inquiry and filing of an application to terminate his protected status. In the Siddiqui it is not clear what triggered the Ministers to pursue termination of Siddiqui's protected status. I do not have the case name or link handy, but I recall seeing another case in which it was clear that it was attendant inquiries related to the individual's application for citizenship which triggered the Ministers to pursue termination of protected status.
I suspect that it is similar to the situation for those who are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation: it is when they are being interviewed at a POE or upon inquiry related to an application made by the PR (for PR card or citizenship or to sponsor a family member), that are the most common triggers.
Mostly, this is something I would go see a competent immigration lawyer about.
