Documents to prove permanent residency obligations?
- Thread starter nick999
- Start date
Probably sufficient, but most people seem to use bank statements, tax returns or payslips.
Bank statements seems good option too, can you tell me how many bank statements need to be provided? One for each year or recent one from 2025 is enough?
Just two pieces of evidence are required, so...just two bank statements. Might be better to provide one and something completely different.
There's no specific amount of activity that's required. If they show some activity that (likely) linked to activity in Canada - it's still evidence.
I honestly think you're overthinking this. Recently did citizenship for two young adults, with limited traditional 'evidence' of presence (i.e. no pay stubs either). No issue.
It appears that IRCC increasingly relies upon the simple evidence presented (eg the self-reported presence in Canada), possibly checks the exit/entry info from CBSA (and/or other parts of govt) and other simple info, and then do (semi-)automatic approval (supported by automated decision making) for the majority of cases. Lately, seems like vast majority of cases for those with no residency obligation issues.
Suggest - once again - providing the two pieces of evidence you can, ensuring all have 730 days in last five years (plus some buffer), and just submitting.
For a PR who meets the RO based on days present here in Canada, who has been living here for awhile and is currently living here, they should be OK marking the "proof" item in the checklist if they include with the application, for example (one among many):
-- a bank statement that shows the PR's address here in Canada and at least one transaction in Canada
-- a copy of the PR's provincial health card (if it is valid AND the PR meets the qualifications for having the coverage)
For a PR here in Canada there should be scores of alternative evidence to submit. Just about anything that shows the PR engaged in some activity here in Canada, or some transaction in Canada, or that shows the PR's presence, or that shows residence (government or business communication addressed to the PR showing the PR's residential address is good).
Unless there is a reason for IRCC to have concerns about the PR's credibility, or a reason to question the PR's report of days present in Canada, the weight of the evidence, however weak or strong, is not likely to be much of a factor. The vast majority of PRs meeting the RO based on days IN Canada do not need to worry about what "proof" they submit, how weak or strong it is; again, all they need to do is submit items (two of them) that show the PR's activity or presence in Canada during the previous five years, or that show the PR was resident in Canada (something showing the PR's residential address for example).
A provincial health claims history showing numerous instances in which the PR obtained health services in Canada would be very strong if not compelling evidence of presence and residence. Rather obviously so. Way more than what is needed.
Whether it is a "good idea" to submit the claims history, given how much personal information that will share, and given that is way more than what is needed, is a different question. More could be said about this, leading to an additional long read . . . we'll see if I get to that (old and slow here).
For now, thank you for framing the question in terms of what is "good idea," whether this or that evidence is "considered weak or solid proof."
Rather than, for example, asking if such evidence is "acceptable," or "sufficient," which are some of the more common ways this is addressed and which beg the question: acceptable for what? sufficient for what?
As to whether it is acceptable or sufficient, for most PRs meeting the RO based on days present in Canada, the short answer is that it needs to be sufficient to honestly check off the "proof" item in the checklist. A very low bar for those meeting the RO based on days in Canada. After all, for the majority of PRs most of the PR card processing done these days is automated, maybe a brief review by an IRCC official after the machine has already, in effect, marked the application for approval.
IRCC is not asking for the equivalent of a Residency Questionnaire, or anything approaching anywhere near that.
There are various reasons why, in addition to more than a little overthinking things here, there has been reluctance to accept how low the bar is for most PRs, not the least is misinformation. Another forum member, for example, @jmark2, recently asserted (frankly, a ludicrous claim) that the instructions make it clear that to count as one of the two pieces of evidence, a PR submitting their CRA Notice of Assessment needs to submit NoAs for five years; not claiming that multiple NoAs will only count as just one piece of evidence, but five of them are necessary to count as one piece of evidence. (What the guide actually means is that a CRA NoA from during the previous five years is an example of evidence of residency; so an NoA from six or eight years ago does not evidence residence in Canada during the period that matters, during the previous five years.)
But (to illustrate . . . well . . . ) that same forum member emphatically asked
right below quoting the examples IRCC lists in the guide, including:
-- evidence that you received benefits from Canadian government programs
So they quoted the answer to their question but asked it anyway, and asked it in a large size bold font.
Perhaps they needed to have it spelled out in detail: yes, documents (records) that show the PR received benefits (such as health care coverage) from a Canadian government program (such as provincial health insurance; OHIP for those in Ontario) is evidence that the PR received benefits from a Canadian government program . . . and thus is evidence of residency in Canada.
Meanwhile, Different PRs In Different Scenarios:
But another reason for some reluctance here to accept how low the bar is a recognition that the level and nature of scrutiny in processing PR card applications can vary significantly from one PR to another, recognizing there can be what is in effect a higher or more strict standard for some. So, depending on their personal situation, some PRs may want to more carefully consider what they submit. Some PRs have good reason to worry about the nature and scope of scrutiny they might face.
Those who have not yet permanently settled here, for example, failing to follow through with what they represented their intent to be (intending to live in Canada permanently, the intent all primary applicants for PR must have to qualify for a grant of PR status), could invite more scrutiny, stricter scrutiny. And in approaching how much consideration to give in deciding what "proof" to submit, it might be prudent for such PRs to more carefully consider what to submit, while those fully established and clearly living here permanently do not need to give this item much thought at all . . . some may see a bit of irony in that the more such evidence the PR has the less likely it makes a difference.
There are scores of scenarios in which a particular PR's situation might present reason to approach what to submit with the application more cautiously. Consider the PR who has an OHIP card (a provincial health card for PRs residing in Ontario):
As noted, a copy of the PR's provincial health card is a piece of evidence showing residency, and moreover is one that is more or less specifically listed as an example in the guide.
But no special expertise necessary, for example, to be aware of issues like those @canuck78 quite often cautions about: for a PR with an OHIP card, if the PR was outside the province of Ontario, let alone outside Canada, for more than 213 days within any one year time period after the date their OHIP card was issued, they are no longer qualified for OHIP coverage (unless they return to Ontario and meet both the residency and presence requirements, and they properly re-apply). Just because such a PR possesses an OHIP card that appears to be valid does not mean they legitimately have coverage, and it would be misrepresentation, fraud, to present the OHIP card as evidence the PR has OHIP coverage if their coverage has lapsed due to absence from the province (they could still include it as one piece of evidence so long as they include an explanation that coverage has lapsed due to absence from the province, but that's the sort of thing that could invite more questions)
So, not a good idea, not at all, to submit a copy of an OHIP card if the PR's address and travel history shows they are not qualified for OHIP . . . even though for many other PRs a copy of their OHIP card would be a good, solid piece of evidence they can submit with a PR card application as a supporting document, as proof of RO compliance.
Bottom-line: for PRs who comply with the RO based on days physically present in Canada, and who are living in Canada, no need to worry much at all about what proof to submit . . .
. . . UNLESS there is a reason for IRCC to have concerns about RO compliance in the particular PR's case . . .
Moreover, the two pieces of evidence submitted with the application, however weak or strong, are not going to be what makes the difference in whether a PR card application ends up in a processing stream for highly complex cases. (With some exceptions . . . like submitting a health card despite a travel or address history indicating the PR is not qualified for the provincial health coverage . . . or items inconsistent with other information . . . there was a case in which a mother's travel history had her outside Canada during a period of time in which she had submitted school records showing her children attending school in Canada; some might say that shows she was in Canada more than she reported, but it's the discrepancy IRCC focused on, calling into question all the information provided by her.)
Similar threads
