As an adult, does time accompanying Canadian citizen parent before grownup be counted?t

[chaimaomao]

Hello,

I have a question about time accompanying parent. I Became Canadian citizen this July. My 20-year old son is currently staying with me outside of Canada. Before he turns 22, the time accompanying me will count in his time Present in Canada. Let's say in 2025, he will be 23 as an adult. Does the time as an dependent child still count into his time in Canada?

Does anybody have similar situation? Thanks,

 

[scylla]

Hello,

I have a question about time accompanying parent. I Became Canadian citizen this July. My 20-year old son is currently staying with me outside of Canada. Before he turns 22, the time accompanying me will count in his time Present in Canada. Let's say in 2025, he will be 23 as an adult. Does the time as an dependent child still count into his time in Canada?

Does anybody have similar situation? Thanks,

I assume you're asking this question with regards to a citizenship application for your son.

You're confusing the PR residency obligation and citizenship residency obligation rules.

The short answer to your question is no. This does not count for citizenship residency obligation purposes.

 

[dpenabill]

Hello,

I have a question about time accompanying parent. I Became Canadian citizen this July. My 20-year old son is currently staying with me outside of Canada. Before he turns 22, the time accompanying me will count in his time Present in Canada. Let's say in 2025, he will be 23 as an adult. Does the time as an dependent child still count into his time in Canada?

Does anybody have similar situation? Thanks,

Credit Toward PR Residency Obligation; short version:

In general, yes, for a PR who is a dependent child accompanying a citizen parent abroad, they get credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation for such days.

I cannot reference any particular case where the PR got credit for such days in a Residency Determination taking place after the PR attained the age of majority (any day on or after the PR's 22nd birthday, with some exceptions allowing extension of that), but there is little or no indication that reaching the age of majority would invalidate previously acquired credit toward RO compliance.

The importance of meeting all the relevant criteria, however, should not be understated; this includes, especially, the PR qualifying as a dependent child during the days for which the credit is relied on.

Additional caveat: the age of majority is subject change; the age of majority is prescribed by regulation, not statute, and can be more easily changed than what is required to change (amend) a statute. Thus, for example, under the Harper era Conservative government, the age of majority was reduced to 19, and then the Trudeau Liberal government revised this and increased the age to 22. A change in government could lead to this being revised lower (and given the narrowly supported minority government now, we could have another election almost at any time). That is, there is no guarantee what the rule will be in 2024 or 2025.


The Long Read -- Credit Toward PR Residency Obligation; longer explanation with further observations:

We have not seen much anecdotal reporting or other discussion about problems or issues for PRs who are DEPENDENT children relying on credit toward the PR RO based on time spent abroad "accompanying" a Canadian citizen parent. My sense is that this is not something which is contested much, the circumstances in which the credit typically applies usually being straight-forward.

It appears, and seems likely, that the fact that the DEPENDENT child has passed the age of majority does not affect entitlement to the credit for days prior to reaching the age of majority spent abroad accompanying a citizen parent, but this comes with some caution in regards to establishing (proving) all the criteria for the credit is met, including meeting the definition of "DEPENDENT" which in turn includes not counting any time AFTER the PR-child has become engaged in a common-law or marital relationship, as well as the PR-child actually "accompanying" the parent. That is, just being under 22 years of age is not sufficient to get the credit.

Thus, as long as the PR is a "dependent child" of a citizen parent, and is "accompanying" the citizen parent abroad (mostly meaning is ordinarily residing with the citizen parent), those days abroad should be given credit toward RO compliance. And most likely will be when there is a Residency Determination (such as upon applying for a PR TD or PR card, or is examined at a Port-of-Entry upon arrival in Canada).

Thus, for example, supporting documents to obtain credit for such days will need to show, basically, the period of time abroad the child was living in the same household as the citizen parent, and otherwise the PR must not have been cohabitating with a partner, NOT EVER cohabitating with a partner (some might want to distinguish cohabitation for a sufficient period to meet some definitions of "common-law" relationship, but there is a risk that cohabiting with a partner could be deemed a sufficient relationship to terminate "dependent" status). Once a person's child is in a common-law relationship that forever terminates their status as a "dependent" child for purposes of Canadian immigration.

In addition to two official sources of applicable information about this credit, there are some largely reliable authoritative (but not official) sources. These are:

Official Sources: ​

-- the statutory provision prescribing the credit, which is Section 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA​

-- the applicable Regulation, which is Section 61(4), 61(6) IRPR​

Unofficial but largely reliable authoritative sources:​

-- the applicable portion, "Situation B," in Appendix A: Residency Obligation, with is part of both Guide 5529 (for PR TD applications) and also Guide IMM 5445 (for PR card applications); these guides are mostly (perhaps entirely) equivalent, essentially describing how IRCC applies the accompanying a citizen credit​

-- Operational Manual ENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status, which may link here[/url]; see Section 7.5​

-- Help Centre FAQ for "Can my time abroad count toward my permanent resident status?"​

Note the supporting documents described in the guides indicate a PR may need to document (prove) the child was "accompanying" the parent by including a copy of ALL passports and travel documents the parent used in the five year relevant time period along with proof of the parent's residential address for all five years . . . which in the language used in the FAQ answer would be to show the dependent child was abroad traveling with the parent.

I do not know and cannot say to what extent this or that authority might scrutinize the facts relevant to establishing the PR-child was "accompanying" the parent. One might guess the older the PR, the more scrutiny there might be. Might IRCC or CBSA consider a child already living abroad before the parent goes abroad as not accompanying the parent abroad? as in not traveling abroad with the parent? Have not seen this question arise, but that means we have not seen any settled decision about this.

Minimizing Risks: Obviously, the safest approach for a PR is to physically be present in Canada for more than enough time to clearly meet the 730/two years RO. Credit for time abroad is considered an "exception," which generally means, in a practical sense, a higher hurdle to show entitlement to the credit.

Credit Toward Grant-Citizenship Physical Presence Requirement:

No indication your query was about getting credit toward eligibility for citizenship, but if I correctly understand what @scylla posted, I agree and there is no doubt, just accompanying a citizen parent abroad will not give a PR any credit toward meeting the physical presence requirement to be eligible for a grant of Canadian citizenship (subject to very specific, narrow exceptions, not implicated here).

I assume that @scylla's references to "citizenship residency obligation rules" and what counts "for citizenship residency obligation purposes," are meant to reference the actual physical presence requirement for a grant of citizenship.

Just for clarity: there is no citizenship residency obligation. And there is no residency obligation to be eligible for a grant of citizenship. The previous "residency" requirement to qualify for a grant of citizenship was replaced by a physical presence requirement in 2015 . . . among the significant differences this makes is that now (since 2015) a PR does not need to establish an in fact residence in Canada for days in Canada to start counting toward the physical presence requirement; in contrast, prior to 2015 to count days resident in Canada the PR first needed to actually establish residence.

 

[chaimaomao]

Thanks for your answer. I am Not talking about his citizenship obligation, it is his PR residence obligation. He is studying in college in the same city with me outside of Canada. When he returns to Canada after graduation, he will be over 22. If his time accompanying a Canadian citizen parent as a child is still counted into his time present in Canada, he will not have problem. I want to confirm this. Thanks.

 

[chaimaomao]

Credit Toward PR Residency Obligation; short version:

In general, yes, for a PR who is a dependent child accompanying a citizen parent abroad, they get credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation for such days.

I cannot reference any particular case where the PR got credit for such days in a Residency Determination taking place after the PR attained the age of majority (any day on or after the PR's 22nd birthday, with some exceptions allowing extension of that), but there is little or no indication that reaching the age of majority would invalidate previously acquired credit toward RO compliance.

The importance of meeting all the relevant criteria, however, should not be understated; this includes, especially, the PR qualifying as a dependent child during the days for which the credit is relied on.

Additional caveat: the age of majority is subject change; the age of majority is prescribed by regulation, not statute, and can be more easily changed than what is required to change (amend) a statute. Thus, for example, under the Harper era Conservative government, the age of majority was reduced to 19, and then the Trudeau Liberal government revised this and increased the age to 22. A change in government could lead to this being revised lower (and given the narrowly supported minority government now, we could have another election almost at any time). That is, there is no guarantee what the rule will be in 2024 or 2025.


The Long Read -- Credit Toward PR Residency Obligation; longer explanation with further observations:

We have not seen much anecdotal reporting or other discussion about problems or issues for PRs who are DEPENDENT children relying on credit toward the PR RO based on time spent abroad "accompanying" a Canadian citizen parent. My sense is that this is not something which is contested much, the circumstances in which the credit typically applies usually being straight-forward.

It appears, and seems likely, that the fact that the DEPENDENT child has passed the age of majority does not affect entitlement to the credit for days prior to reaching the age of majority spent abroad accompanying a citizen parent, but this comes with some caution in regards to establishing (proving) all the criteria for the credit is met, including meeting the definition of "DEPENDENT" which in turn includes not counting any time AFTER the PR-child has become engaged in a common-law or marital relationship, as well as the PR-child actually "accompanying" the parent. That is, just being under 22 years of age is not sufficient to get the credit.

Thus, as long as the PR is a "dependent child" of a citizen parent, and is "accompanying" the citizen parent abroad (mostly meaning is ordinarily residing with the citizen parent), those days abroad should be given credit toward RO compliance. And most likely will be when there is a Residency Determination (such as upon applying for a PR TD or PR card, or is examined at a Port-of-Entry upon arrival in Canada).

Thus, for example, supporting documents to obtain credit for such days will need to show, basically, the period of time abroad the child was living in the same household as the citizen parent, and otherwise the PR must not have been cohabitating with a partner, NOT EVER cohabitating with a partner (some might want to distinguish cohabitation for a sufficient period to meet some definitions of "common-law" relationship, but there is a risk that cohabiting with a partner could be deemed a sufficient relationship to terminate "dependent" status). Once a person's child is in a common-law relationship that forever terminates their status as a "dependent" child for purposes of Canadian immigration.

In addition to two official sources of applicable information about this credit, there are some largely reliable authoritative (but not official) sources. These are:

Official Sources: ​

-- the statutory provision prescribing the credit, which is Section 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA​

-- the applicable Regulation, which is Section 61(4), 61(6) IRPR​

Unofficial but largely reliable authoritative sources:​

-- the applicable portion, "Situation B," in Appendix A: Residency Obligation, with is part of both Guide 5529 (for PR TD applications) and also Guide IMM 5445 (for PR card applications); these guides are mostly (perhaps entirely) equivalent, essentially describing how IRCC applies the accompanying a citizen credit​

-- Operational Manual ENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status, which may link here[/url]; see Section 7.5​

-- Help Centre FAQ for "Can my time abroad count toward my permanent resident status?"​

Note the supporting documents described in the guides indicate a PR may need to document (prove) the child was "accompanying" the parent by including a copy of ALL passports and travel documents the parent used in the five year relevant time period along with proof of the parent's residential address for all five years . . . which in the language used in the FAQ answer would be to show the dependent child was abroad traveling with the parent.

I do not know and cannot say to what extent this or that authority might scrutinize the facts relevant to establishing the PR-child was "accompanying" the parent. One might guess the older the PR, the more scrutiny there might be. Might IRCC or CBSA consider a child already living abroad before the parent goes abroad as not accompanying the parent abroad? as in not traveling abroad with the parent? Have not seen this question arise, but that means we have not seen any settled decision about this.

Minimizing Risks: Obviously, the safest approach for a PR is to physically be present in Canada for more than enough time to clearly meet the 730/two years RO. Credit for time abroad is considered an "exception," which generally means, in a practical sense, a higher hurdle to show entitlement to the credit.

Credit Toward Grant-Citizenship Physical Presence Requirement:

No indication your query was about getting credit toward eligibility for citizenship, but if I correctly understand what @scylla posted, I agree and there is no doubt, just accompanying a citizen parent abroad will not give a PR any credit toward meeting the physical presence requirement to be eligible for a grant of Canadian citizenship (subject to very specific, narrow exceptions, not implicated here).

I assume that @scylla's references to "citizenship residency obligation rules" and what counts "for citizenship residency obligation purposes," are meant to reference the actual physical presence requirement for a grant of citizenship.

Just for clarity: there is no citizenship residency obligation. And there is no residency obligation to be eligible for a grant of citizenship. The previous "residency" requirement to qualify for a grant of citizenship was replaced by a physical presence requirement in 2015 . . . among the significant differences this makes is that now (since 2015) a PR does not need to establish an in fact residence in Canada for days in Canada to start counting toward the physical presence requirement; in contrast, prior to 2015 to count days resident in Canada the PR first needed to actually establish residence.

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. Could you please elaborate the criteria of "accompanying"? My son is studying in a college in the same city I am living. He stays most of the time in college and visits me during weekends and vacations.

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. Could you please elaborate the criteria of "accompanying"? My son is studying in a college in the same city I am living. He stays most of the time in college and visits me during weekends and vacations.

Sorry, but as I noted we have not seen questions arise in regards to how this is applied in reference to dependent children relying on credit for accompanying a citizen parent abroad, regarding which it is difficult to draw any inferences or conclusions beyond the statute and regulation and what IRCC specifically states (all of which I referenced and linked above). So beyond what you can read in the sources I cited and linked, in my previous post, I cannot elaborate regarding what criteria might be considered in determining that a dependent child has been "accompanying" the citizen parent.

We know what the regulation states: for the purpose of the accompanying a citizen abroad credit, "a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen [parent] . . . on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen."

It is easy to see that if a dependent child is living with their parent in Canada and the parent travels abroad, and the child is traveling with the parent, and they live in the same household abroad, those are days for which the dependent child will almost certainly be entitled to credit toward RO compliance.

To what extent variable circumstances might affect this, again I cannot say. Note, in particular, I am no expert.

Moreover, the particular details vary and that variability can influence how things go. Many college students continue to maintain their place of residence in a home they share with their parents while they go off to college and are boarding in a dorm or other college based housing. But if and when the student is no longer residing with the parent but has his or her own residence, is a question of fact and will vary considerably depending on the particular facts in the specific individual's circumstances. I suspect my experience is similar to many. During my first two years of studies at university my residence continued to be where I was living with my parents, even though for months at a time I was boarding in university housing, but then I dropped out, established my own place of residence, and during subsequent years when I returned to university and graduate studies, I had my own residence. For the first couple years I would say I was ordinarily residing with my parents, but not so after that.

The particular facts can matter.

Again, the regulation refers to days the PR is "ordinarily residing" with the parent. And in PR card applications and PR Travel Document applications, if a PR is relying on the credit for accompanying a citizen parent, IRCC wants to see the parent's passports and travel documents, and the parent's address history for the relevant five years. No special expertise necessary to see this is probably about comparing travel, and determining if the PR's travel history and the parent's travel history is consistent with the PR traveling with the parent; and probably about comparing address history to determine if the PR's address history and the parent's address history is consistent with the PR "ordinarily residing" with the parent.

What we do not know, not even close, is whether in the case of a PR-child IRCC examines the facts closely enough to distinguish situations in which it might be questioned if the PR-child was sufficiently "accompanying" the parent to get the credit. Frankly, I doubt that in MOST cases IRCC does look at this all that closely. I would hesitate to even bring it up (not wanting to invite unnecessary worry) . . . except . . . well the situation presented suggests some potential risks. If, for example, your son has spent very little time actually living in Canada and was already living abroad before you moved abroad, that's a scenario which on its face would not appear to be the child accompanying the parent abroad. I am not at all sure this would be a problem, but it is not hard to foresee some potential risk, especially if the PR has passed his 22nd birthday by the time there is an examination as to RO compliance.

In contrast, for example, if your child has been living with you in Canada, and you both moved abroad at least roughly around the same time, and you both established a common residence abroad, and then your son did not move from your shared residence so much as he is boarding near the college during classes, my sense is that would not lead a total stranger bureaucrat to have questions about whether the PR is accompanying the citizen parent.

So a lot could depend on the particular facts. And so far I know of, there are no guidelines, no actual cases in which this has been a litigated question.

But if you are not actually living together, and especially if he was already abroad before you went abroad, it would be prudent to approach this cautiously and, perhaps, consult with a legal professional in Canada before fully relying on qualifying for this credit.

 

[armoured]

Thus, for example, supporting documents to obtain credit for such days will need to show, basically, the period of time abroad the child was living in the same household as the citizen parent, and otherwise the PR must not have been cohabitating with a partner, NOT EVER cohabitating with a partner (some might want to distinguish cohabitation for a sufficient period to meet some definitions of "common-law" relationship, but there is a risk that cohabiting with a partner could be deemed a sufficient relationship to terminate "dependent" status). Once a person's child is in a common-law relationship that forever terminates their status as a "dependent" child for purposes of Canadian immigration.

Thanks for your answer. I am Not talking about his citizenship obligation, it is his PR residence obligation. He is studying in college in the same city with me outside of Canada. When he returns to Canada after graduation, he will be over 22. If his time accompanying a Canadian citizen parent as a child is still counted into his time present in Canada, he will not have problem.

I am going to raise an issue that I suspect at present there will be no good answer to. It may also be influenced by how long he has been abroad (you say he is already with you and not clear when he left and you became a citizen). I think also relevant what documents he currently has with what validity (PR card currently valid, already out of date, will still be valid when he finishes school, or will by then be outdated and invalid). And potentially also what other passport the child holds and if can enter Canada via USA.

The issue is: it is easy enough to say that the child, now an adult, will 'get credit' for days accompanying the parent.

It is a different matter to actually do so: there's no running total kept anywhere, you can't get or register this in advance, nor - as a result - be certain how and when that might happen and with what waiting times or costs in doing so. And related, depending on how this is done, whether there might be other complications, like getting health care coverage in Canada, potential (if unlikely) complications with SIN numbers, etc. You don't just 'apply' to get credit for this time abroad.

Roughly speaking, assuming one does not have a valid PR card at the time the boy wishes to return to Canada, likely applies for a PRTD abroad (and hopefully the positive decision comes relatively quickly, but experience varies), and then for a PR card on returning to Canada (which knock wood should be fine with a positive PRTD decision). With a passport that allows entry to Canada, presumably one could return through USA and then apply for a PR card (and it possiby takes longer because there has been no adjudication/consideration of the 'time accompanying'), etc. Hopefully no long periods without health care or other issues.

Then a separate point of what happens if the boy does not wish to return to Canada at end of schooling, gets a job somewhere, etc. Life happens. Which is fine, but might complicate retaining PR status as the calendar pages are turned.

Anyway, note I'm not disagreeing with points above, just noting that the practicalities may be somewhat complicated or unclear, and create their own complications.

 

[canuck78]

If the child was living at the university and not returning to their parent’s home daily those days are unlikely to count as accompanying a Canadian. IRCC usually wants proof that you have lived in the same residence to count days with a Canadian citizen. Whether there will also be issues with trying to get credit for days accompanying a Canadian parent is a whole other issue. It’s unclear how many days @chaimaomao and their son will have accumulated if they only counted the days where they where both living together under the same roof and eliminated the days where the son was living in the dorms.

 

[dpenabill]

Could you please elaborate the criteria of "accompanying"? My son is studying in a college in the same city I am living. He stays most of the time in college and visits me during weekends and vacations.

Further Observations (in light of other comments):

There is some risk of making this more complicated, and more worrisome, than necessary. It ordinarily should NOT be complicated. It ordinarily should not be a situation to worry about.

And all indications are it is rarely complicated, given the apparent absence (in discussions in the forum as well as in known IAD decisions) of issues causing problems or litigation.

In particular:

A PR who is not yet 22 years of age, and who has never cohabitated with a partner and never otherwise been in a marital or common-law relationship, who travels abroad with, and is living abroad with, the PR's Canadian citizen parent, gets RO credit for those days abroad. The fact that the RO compliance calculation occurs AFTER the PR is 22 years old, no longer a dependent child, does NOT change this.​

So, it warrants emphasizing that if your child had been living with you in Canada, and you both moved abroad at least roughly around the same time, and you both established a common residence abroad, there should be NO problem getting RO credit for that period of time abroad (prior to your son's 22nd birthday and within the five relevant years), even if your son is boarding in a college dorm (or comparable other college-housing) while he nonetheless maintains his primary residence the same as that shared with you.

If that is the situation, not complicated, no need to worry.

Beyond that . . .

I disagree with @canuck78 regarding days away from home, such as those boarding at college:

If the child was living at the university and not returning to their parent’s home daily those days are unlikely to count as accompanying a Canadian. IRCC usually wants proof that you have lived in the same residence to count days with a Canadian citizen. Whether there will also be issues with trying to get credit for days accompanying a Canadian parent is a whole other issue. It’s unclear how many days @chaimaomao and their son will have accumulated if they only counted the days where they where both living together under the same roof and eliminated the days where the son was living in the dorms.

There is no need for a dependent child to be continually in the parent's presence or at the same location. The credit is based on the child "ordinarily residing" with the parent, not based on the number of days or nights they spend at the same address. There is no hint that any PRs have been questioned, let alone challenged, in regards to how many days or nights they were together with their citizen parent.

It is correct that among the supporting documents IRCC asks for in both a PR card application, and a PR Travel Document application, the parent's address history is requested, which is most likely compared with the PR's information to ascertain that the PR and parent were living at the same address. The question is whether that address is honestly the PR's primary residence, regardless how many nights are spent there compared to nights spent elsewhere. That is: Is the parent's home also the child-PR's home? If yes, that should be readily sufficient to constitute "ordinarily residing" with the parent.

And there has been no hint, none whatsoever, that IRCC probes much into this.

Many students continue to maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were living at with a parent, while they are otherwise boarding at school. Many other students do not maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were previously living at with a parent. The main thing is that the PR, your son, truthfully (honestly) disclose the address for his primary residence.

The remaining source of potential concern relates to whether your son was living abroad BEFORE you traveled abroad; that is, will your respective travel history and address history indicate your son did not actually go with you ("accompany" you) in traveling abroad? I do not know whether IRCC officials will even screen information related to this. There is some risk they might. As I previously noted, if you are not actually living together, and especially if he was already abroad before you went abroad, it would be prudent to approach this cautiously and, perhaps, consult with a legal professional in Canada before fully relying on qualifying for this credit.

Practical Issues: I agree with @armoured that, in effect, the difference between the rule itself and its practical application, in the particular case, can involve various complicating matters.

For the most part, however, those are similar to what any PR spending extended time abroad deals with.

 

[chaimaomao]

Further Observations (in light of other comments):

There is some risk of making this more complicated, and more worrisome, than necessary. It ordinarily should NOT be complicated. It ordinarily should not be a situation to worry about.

And all indications are it is rarely complicated, given the apparent absence (in discussions in the forum as well as in known IAD decisions) of issues causing problems or litigation.

In particular:

A PR who is not yet 22 years of age, and who has never cohabitated with a partner and never otherwise been in a marital or common-law relationship, who travels abroad with, and is living abroad with, the PR's Canadian citizen parent, gets RO credit for those days abroad. The fact that the RO compliance calculation occurs AFTER the PR is 22 years old, no longer a dependent child, does NOT change this.​

So, it warrants emphasizing that if your child had been living with you in Canada, and you both moved abroad at least roughly around the same time, and you both established a common residence abroad, there should be NO problem getting RO credit for that period of time abroad (prior to your son's 22nd birthday and within the five relevant years), even if your son is boarding in a college dorm (or comparable other college-housing) while he nonetheless maintains his primary residence the same as that shared with you.

If that is the situation, not complicated, no need to worry.

Beyond that . . .

I disagree with @canuck78 regarding days away from home, such as those boarding at college:


There is no need for a dependent child to be continually in the parent's presence or at the same location. The credit is based on the child "ordinarily residing" with the parent, not based on the number of days or nights they spend at the same address. There is no hint that any PRs have been questioned, let alone challenged, in regards to how many days or nights they were together with their citizen parent.

It is correct that among the supporting documents IRCC asks for in both a PR card application, and a PR Travel Document application, the parent's address history is requested, which is most likely compared with the PR's information to ascertain that the PR and parent were living at the same address. The question is whether that address is honestly the PR's primary residence, regardless how many nights are spent there compared to nights spent elsewhere. That is: Is the parent's home also the child-PR's home? If yes, that should be readily sufficient to constitute "ordinarily residing" with the parent.

And there has been no hint, none whatsoever, that IRCC probes much into this.

Many students continue to maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were living at with a parent, while they are otherwise boarding at school. Many other students do not maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were previously living at with a parent. The main thing is that the PR, your son, truthfully (honestly) disclose the address for his primary residence.

The remaining source of potential concern relates to whether your son was living abroad BEFORE you traveled abroad; that is, will your respective travel history and address history indicate your son did not actually go with you ("accompany" you) in traveling abroad? I do not know whether IRCC officials will even screen information related to this. There is some risk they might. As I previously noted, if you are not actually living together, and especially if he was already abroad before you went abroad, it would be prudent to approach this cautiously and, perhaps, consult with a legal professional in Canada before fully relying on qualifying for this credit.

Practical Issues: I agree with @armoured that, in effect, the difference between the rule itself and its practical application, in the particular case, can involve various complicating matters.

For the most part, however, those are similar to what any PR spending extended time abroad deals with.

Thanks for your opinion. My situation is my son lived together with me in Canada for 4 years and he travelled abroad in July 2020 and I travelled abroad in September 2020 together with my younger son. Since then he never returns to Canada. I returned to Canada this June for my citizenship ceremony and travelled abroad again in August. I assume that my son's time since this August should be counted into his PR RO until he becomes 22. My son's PR card expired and he successfully got his PRTD this June but he did not go to Canada. We are considering to enter Canada next summer through USA and apply for renewal of his PR card. We might have to apply some RO credit for renewal of PR card. If he successfully get his PR card renewed, it might be easier for him to get back to Canada in 2025 when he completes his college.

 

[canuck78]

Further Observations (in light of other comments):

There is some risk of making this more complicated, and more worrisome, than necessary. It ordinarily should NOT be complicated. It ordinarily should not be a situation to worry about.

And all indications are it is rarely complicated, given the apparent absence (in discussions in the forum as well as in known IAD decisions) of issues causing problems or litigation.

In particular:

A PR who is not yet 22 years of age, and who has never cohabitated with a partner and never otherwise been in a marital or common-law relationship, who travels abroad with, and is living abroad with, the PR's Canadian citizen parent, gets RO credit for those days abroad. The fact that the RO compliance calculation occurs AFTER the PR is 22 years old, no longer a dependent child, does NOT change this.​

So, it warrants emphasizing that if your child had been living with you in Canada, and you both moved abroad at least roughly around the same time, and you both established a common residence abroad, there should be NO problem getting RO credit for that period of time abroad (prior to your son's 22nd birthday and within the five relevant years), even if your son is boarding in a college dorm (or comparable other college-housing) while he nonetheless maintains his primary residence the same as that shared with you.

If that is the situation, not complicated, no need to worry.

Beyond that . . .

I disagree with @canuck78 regarding days away from home, such as those boarding at college:


There is no need for a dependent child to be continually in the parent's presence or at the same location. The credit is based on the child "ordinarily residing" with the parent, not based on the number of days or nights they spend at the same address. There is no hint that any PRs have been questioned, let alone challenged, in regards to how many days or nights they were together with their citizen parent.

It is correct that among the supporting documents IRCC asks for in both a PR card application, and a PR Travel Document application, the parent's address history is requested, which is most likely compared with the PR's information to ascertain that the PR and parent were living at the same address. The question is whether that address is honestly the PR's primary residence, regardless how many nights are spent there compared to nights spent elsewhere. That is: Is the parent's home also the child-PR's home? If yes, that should be readily sufficient to constitute "ordinarily residing" with the parent.

And there has been no hint, none whatsoever, that IRCC probes much into this.

Many students continue to maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were living at with a parent, while they are otherwise boarding at school. Many other students do not maintain their home or primary residence at the same address they were previously living at with a parent. The main thing is that the PR, your son, truthfully (honestly) disclose the address for his primary residence.

The remaining source of potential concern relates to whether your son was living abroad BEFORE you traveled abroad; that is, will your respective travel history and address history indicate your son did not actually go with you ("accompany" you) in traveling abroad? I do not know whether IRCC officials will even screen information related to this. There is some risk they might. As I previously noted, if you are not actually living together, and especially if he was already abroad before you went abroad, it would be prudent to approach this cautiously and, perhaps, consult with a legal professional in Canada before fully relying on qualifying for this credit.

Practical Issues: I agree with @armoured that, in effect, the difference between the rule itself and its practical application, in the particular case, can involve various complicating matters.

For the most part, however, those are similar to what any PR spending extended time abroad deals with.

Most students keep their parents home as a mailing address because they know they will be changing address multiple times during a short period of time during their studies and are worried that important documents may be sent to an old address. The fact that the student will not be physically residing with the Canadian parent does make a difference when trying to count days accompanying a parent abroad. The student could be attending the school and living in the dorms without the parent even being in their home country. Their stay abroad is not dependent on the parent. If you have a child attending a university in Canada and living in a dorm you would not say that the child’s current address (during the school year) is their childhood home.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . my son lived together with me in Canada for 4 years and he travelled abroad in July 2020 and I travelled abroad in September 2020 together with my younger son . . . We are considering to enter Canada next summer through USA and apply for renewal of his PR card. We might have to apply some RO credit for renewal of PR card. If he successfully get his PR card renewed, it might be easier for him to get back to Canada in 2025 when he completes his college.

For purposes of the trip in 2023 returning to Canada via the U.S., if he has been absent from Canada continuously for three years, or even close to three years, it would be a good idea to be traveling TOGETHER, literally, physically accompanying one another. Days physically present in Canada from latter part of 2018 (those still within the previous five years) until departure in 2020 will count toward RO compliance and could be a significant factor in how it goes.

Yes, having a valid PR card makes returning to Canada easier (can fly directly to Canada for one thing), and improves the odds of not facing a RO compliance challenge at the Port-of-Entry upon arrival. Note, nonetheless, that by 2025, depending on how long he stays in Canada in 2023, it appears he will have spent only a small number of days physically present in Canada within the preceding five years. This can matter. The number of days actually physically present in Canada, in the relevant five years, matters. Credit for other days relies on an EXCEPTION, and credit for exceptions is often, perhaps typically, subject to elevated scrutiny. Approach accordingly.



A tangent . . . which warrants some in-depth clarification.

Residing at an Address -- "Using" An Address, Distinguished:

Well, actually, what warrants in-depth attention is rebutting the effort to pass judgment and inject an issue, or at least mischaracterize and elevate an issue, which ordinarily is not and should not be complicated, let alone a problem.

For a PR who meets the definition of "dependent child" who was living in Canada with their Canadian parent, who subsequently is accompanying their parent abroad and the parent is a Canadian citizen, the PR is allowed credit toward RO compliance for that time abroad.

Moreover, as long as the PR and Canadian citizen parent are "ordinarily residing" together (which is not limited to days physically together), the days will count as days "accompanying" the parent and be given credit toward meeting the PR RO.

There has been NO hint that IRCC drills into or otherwise challenges such PRs beyond requiring the PR and parent to provide their respective travel documents and address history. As long as the PR can honestly report they maintain their primary residence at the same address as the parent, there should be NO issue about qualifying for the "accompanying" credit, even if the child and parent are not physically together for significant periods of time.

As I address in more detail below, students continuing to consider their home and primary residence where their parent lives, while boarding or lodging at school, is more than common enough to not be out of character compared to societal norms, and this is unlikely to be challenged (absent overt indications the child is emancipated and has affirmatively established primary residence at a different address).

If you have a child attending a university in Canada and living in a dorm you would not say that the child’s current address (during the school year) is their childhood home.

I disagree that is true for all student's living in student lodging, in a dorm or otherwise, while attending classes. It can vary and does vary. It depends. And, the individual's *intent* is a big factor. For the student who intends to maintain their primary residence at "home," with their parents, their lodging at at college or university while attending classes does not terminate or change that.

It is a bit like registering to vote where one resides; some students will register to vote based on their university address, while others register to vote back home. Legally. Largely a matter of choice (intent), subject to having sufficient residential ties to the address consistent with maintaining it as their primary residence.

On the other hand, there are many examples in this forum of PRs "using" an address as their home or residential address even though they do not really reside there, which is typically an address where a friend or family member resides. There is no shortage of examples, here, in which PRs are using an address as their home or residential address, and advocating to others it is OK to do this, where that address is little more than a location at which they are able to get mail.

This is often a will-I-get-away-with-it scenario. Even when this is overtly misrepresentation, even outright in fact fraudulent, it is common. It is so common, on one hand, and it is so rarely challenged or confronted by IRCC on the other hand (despite blatantly intended deception in many instances, this is almost never prosecuted as misrepresentation), many talk about doing this as if it is sanctioned, that it is OK. As I noted, many here actually advocate doing this.

It is NOT actually OK. And those found out or caught can encounter negative consequences as a result, sometimes severe consequences . . . even if it is rather unusual to be found out.

In particular, I am NOT among those who condone, let alone sanction this. I largely steer clear of discussions asking "can I use" my mother's or brother's address, or my friend's friend's sister's address? Or such. It is so common, even when blatantly a misrepresentation, there is no point inviting argument about what the legitimate parameters are by pointing out that declaring where one lives to IRCC or CBSA is not like giving a business, or even a bank, a home address which in fact is merely an address where one is able to get mail.

In regards to this issue I focus on what matters most: being honest. With only some personal exceptions (like those in transit who have definitively ceased residence at their last address), we all know our address, the address which we consider to be our "home" or primary residence. The best approach, and it is the best approach in actual practice without relying on ethics or morality, is to be truthful, to be honest. So, just as I have said here, and there really is no basis to dispute this, the important thing is for a PR to be honest, and this includes in regards to declaring their home address and address history.

Leading to . . .

 

[dpenabill]

Leading to . . .

Further observations about residing at an Address -- "Using" An Address, Distinguished:

Most students keep their parents home as a mailing address because they know they will be changing address multiple times during a short period of time during their studies and are worried that important documents may be sent to an old address. The fact that the student will not be physically residing with the Canadian parent does make a difference when trying to count days accompanying a parent abroad. The student could be attending the school and living in the dorms without the parent even being in their home country. Their stay abroad is not dependent on the parent. If you have a child attending a university in Canada and living in a dorm you would not say that the child’s current address (during the school year) is their childhood home.

There is much in this that is not true or at least which overstates things. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that what "most students" do, or why, is NOT particularly relevant. As I commented, and no expertise is necessary to know this, and know it for certain:

The main thing is that the PR [OP's son] truthfully (honestly) disclose the address for his primary residence.

Reminder; an Important Reminder: the situation for "most" people is NOT relevant when providing information to IRCC or CBSA. PRs, in particular, are obligated to truthfully answer questions based on the facts, the actual facts in their case. Not what most people do. Even if their situation is different from how it is for nine out of ten, or even nineteen out of twenty, they are obligated to give an honest answer. If the truth seems so out of character, compared to what most people do, that it is to likely raise questions or concerns, then generally the PR can add a supplemental explanation or clarification in the application, or if the context is answering questions orally, such as when being examined at a Port-of-Entry, typically the better approach is to wait to see if the examining official asks further questions about it and give direct, truthful answers in response. Always the truth.​

That said, students continuing to consider their home and primary residence where their parent lives, while boarding or lodging at school, is more than common enough to not be "out of character" compared to societal norms.

Beyond that . . . distinguishing "use" of an address that is used as a residence . . .

This forum is rife with scores and scores of situations in which individuals list, as in "use" a friend or family member's address as their "home address." Some actually do use that address as their residence, even though others do not use it as a residence at all. Lots and lots of variations in between. It is up to the individual to be truthful.

It warrants noting that once an individual has established a primary residence at an address, generally that continues to be their home or primary residence (which one can reasonably and honestly describe as the address where they "ordinarily reside") UNTIL . . .

(1) they affirmatively, with intent, establish residence at a different location, or​

(2) they definitively cease using that address as their primary residence, or​

(3) as a matter of fact they have minimal residential ties to the address while, in contrast, they have more definitive residential ties elsewhere, such that it would be dishonest to claim they still ordinarily reside at the previous address (note that for purposes of eligibility for some provincial benefits, for example, where someone ordinarily resides, in cases involving individuals spending lots of time elsewhere, is determined by balancing their respective residential ties in the different locations)​

There are many, many scenarios in which merely staying elsewhere for a day or week or a month, sometimes even much more, does not establish residence at a different location:

From soldiers to oil rig workers, long-haul truckers to those who travel extensively for business, from film makers to professional athletes, personnel employed by airlines and ship transport and cruise lines, many people in government, and yes students, among many others, there is no shortage of people who will spend lengthy periods of time away-from-home, without that changing where "home" is.

Whether listing or reporting a particular address is an honest statement, or is misleading, or is an outright misrepresentation, is a very individual and fact specific question. And the context matters. It depends on the specific situation and the context. It even depends on the individual's intention. In fact, it often depends a lot on the individual's intention.

Note: "intent" is a question of fact, but a fact that can be difficult for bureaucracies to verify, and because of this, for Canadian PR RO and citizenship requirements, Canada largely dropped "residency" requirements and adopted physical presence standards; other government eligibility requirements have similarly done things like that employed by OHIP, for which eligibility requires an individual to be BOTH a resident of Ontario AND physically present in Ontario at least 153 days of the year . . . explicitly acknowledging a person can maintain their primary residence in Ontario even though they are outside Ontario most of the year.​

The fact that the student will not be physically residing with the Canadian parent does make a difference when trying to count days accompanying a parent abroad.

A student who returns "HOME," to where their parent lives, returning home for holidays and during school breaks, let alone like the situation posed here where the student goes home weekends as well, and who has not otherwise established their primary residence elsewhere, can ordinarily describe, reasonably and honestly, that location, that address, to be their home address, their primary address, the place where they "ordinarily reside."

That is, in such a case it is reasonable and honest to say their home, and the home of their parent, is the address where they "physically reside." Even if they are not physically present there every day, or even most days.

No need to precisely count and compare the number of nights spent in the respective locations.

If no nights or only a very few, scattered nights, are spent at the parent's address, that can be a factor to consider, but there are many other factors that also matter. (Again, for example, see some guidelines for certain types of provincial benefits, regarding requirements to "ordinarily reside" in the province, which guidelines typically enumerate a range of "residential ties" to consider and specifically allow a person can continue to ordinarily reside in the province despite extensive time spent elsewhere).

Finally, Physical Presence Versus Residence Versus Physically Residing Versus Ordinarily Residing:

Notwithstanding the label or title, the Canadian PR Residency Obligation is a physical presence requirement . . . with exceptions. The exceptions allow PRs credit for certain time periods abroad, counting those days abroad as days physically present in Canada. Among the exceptions, dependent-age PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen parent abroad are allowed credit for the time abroad. There is no suggestion that credit is in any way limited to only those days physically spent in each other's presence or in the same household.

 

[chaimaomao]

Thanks for so detailed explanation. Let me ask you a technical question in filling the application form imm5444 for renewal of PR card in July 2024 (Son still under 22 years old)

4.1 Address history:
August 2019 - August 2020, parent living Address in Canada
August 2020 - July 2024, parent living Address abroad

4.2 work and education history
"September 2020 - June 2024 school Address (different with living Address)"

5.5 Time spent outside Canada
September 2020 - August 2022 (time parent Became canadian citizen and returned home abroad), parent Address, reason for absence: studying, absence days: 700

August 2022 - June 2024, Parent Address Not School Address, reason for absence: B accompanying a canadian citizen parent abroad, Days absence: 0

Days absence total will be 700 days and RO will be met. Is it correct? Thanks.

 

[chaimaomao]

Leading to . . .

Further observations about residing at an Address -- "Using" An Address, Distinguished:


There is much in this that is not true or at least which overstates things. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that what "most students" do, or why, is NOT particularly relevant. As I commented, and no expertise is necessary to know this, and know it for certain:

Reminder; an Important Reminder: the situation for "most" people is NOT relevant when providing information to IRCC or CBSA. PRs, in particular, are obligated to truthfully answer questions based on the facts, the actual facts in their case. Not what most people do. Even if their situation is different from how it is for nine out of ten, or even nineteen out of twenty, they are obligated to give an honest answer. If the truth seems so out of character, compared to what most people do, that it is to likely raise questions or concerns, then generally the PR can add a supplemental explanation or clarification in the application, or if the context is answering questions orally, such as when being examined at a Port-of-Entry, typically the better approach is to wait to see if the examining official asks further questions about it and give direct, truthful answers in response. Always the truth.​

That said, students continuing to consider their home and primary residence where their parent lives, while boarding or lodging at school, is more than common enough to not be "out of character" compared to societal norms.

Beyond that . . . distinguishing "use" of an address that is used as a residence . . .

This forum is rife with scores and scores of situations in which individuals list, as in "use" a friend or family member's address as their "home address." Some actually do use that address as their residence, even though others do not use it as a residence at all. Lots and lots of variations in between. It is up to the individual to be truthful.

It warrants noting that once an individual has established a primary residence at an address, generally that continues to be their home or primary residence (which one can reasonably and honestly describe as the address where they "ordinarily reside") UNTIL . . .

(1) they affirmatively, with intent, establish residence at a different location, or​

(2) they definitively cease using that address as their primary residence, or​

(3) as a matter of fact they have minimal residential ties to the address while, in contrast, they have more definitive residential ties elsewhere, such that it would be dishonest to claim they still ordinarily reside at the previous address (note that for purposes of eligibility for some provincial benefits, for example, where someone ordinarily resides, in cases involving individuals spending lots of time elsewhere, is determined by balancing their respective residential ties in the different locations)​

There are many, many scenarios in which merely staying elsewhere for a day or week or a month, sometimes even much more, does not establish residence at a different location:

From soldiers to oil rig workers, long-haul truckers to those who travel extensively for business, from film makers to professional athletes, personnel employed by airlines and ship transport and cruise lines, many people in government, and yes students, among many others, there is no shortage of people who will spend lengthy periods of time away-from-home, without that changing where "home" is.

Whether listing or reporting a particular address is an honest statement, or is misleading, or is an outright misrepresentation, is a very individual and fact specific question. And the context matters. It depends on the specific situation and the context. It even depends on the individual's intention. In fact, it often depends a lot on the individual's intention.

Note: "intent" is a question of fact, but a fact that can be difficult for bureaucracies to verify, and because of this, for Canadian PR RO and citizenship requirements, Canada largely dropped "residency" requirements and adopted physical presence standards; other government eligibility requirements have similarly done things like that employed by OHIP, for which eligibility requires an individual to be BOTH a resident of Ontario AND physically present in Ontario at least 153 days of the year . . . explicitly acknowledging a person can maintain their primary residence in Ontario even though they are outside Ontario most of the year.​

A student who returns "HOME," to where their parent lives, returning home for holidays and during school breaks, let alone like the situation posed here where the student goes home weekends as well, and who has not otherwise established their primary residence elsewhere, can ordinarily describe, reasonably and honestly, that location, that address, to be their home address, their primary address, the place where they "ordinarily reside."

That is, in such a case it is reasonable and honest to say their home, and the home of their parent, is the address where they "physically reside." Even if they are not physically present there every day, or even most days.

No need to precisely count and compare the number of nights spent in the respective locations.

If no nights or only a very few, scattered nights, are spent at the parent's address, that can be a factor to consider, but there are many other factors that also matter. (Again, for example, see some guidelines for certain types of provincial benefits, regarding requirements to "ordinarily reside" in the province, which guidelines typically enumerate a range of "residential ties" to consider and specifically allow a person can continue to ordinarily reside in the province despite extensive time spent elsewhere).

Finally, Physical Presence Versus Residence Versus Physically Residing Versus Ordinarily Residing:

Notwithstanding the label or title, the Canadian PR Residency Obligation is a physical presence requirement . . . with exceptions. The exceptions allow PRs credit for certain time periods abroad, counting those days abroad as days physically present in Canada. Among the exceptions, dependent-age PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen parent abroad are allowed credit for the time abroad. There is no suggestion that credit is in any way limited to only those days physically spent in each other's presence or in the same household.

Thanks for so detailed explanation. Let me ask you a technical question in filling the application form imm5444 for renewal of PR card in July 2024 (Son still under 22 years old)

4.1 Address history:
August 2019 - August 2020, parent living Address in Canada
August 2020 - July 2024, parent living Address abroad

4.2 work and education history
"September 2020 - June 2024 school Address (different with living Address)"

5.5 Time spent outside Canada
September 2020 - August 2022 (time parent Became canadian citizen and returned home abroad), parent Address, reason for absence: studying, absence days: 700

August 2022 - June 2024, Parent Address Not School Address, reason for absence: B accompanying a canadian citizen parent abroad, Days absence: 0

Days absence total will be 700 days and RO will be met. Is it correct? Thanks.