The Section 63(3) IRPA right of appeal applies to the issuance of a "removal order" (which may be labelled either "Removal Order" or "Departure Order").
Thus, as noted by @canuck78, there is no decision to appeal unless and until the Minister's Delegate has issued the removal order.
However, the usual procedure is such that there is a Minister's Delegate decision promptly following the issuance of a 44(1) Report.
That said . . .
There are a small number of anecdotal reports about PRs who are examined at a PoE and apparently issued a 44(1) Report which is not promptly followed by an interview (which can be by telephone, usually at the PoE but sometimes taking place a number of days after the PoE examination) with a Minister's Delegate. If the PR is issued a 44(1) Report but NOT interviewed by the Minister's Delegate promptly, it APPEARS the PR's case is in limbo for some time following the PoE issuance of the 44(1) Report.
My only exposure to the circumstances attendant these cases is what has been reported in a forum like this. That is, I have not seen any IAD decisions, any Federal Court cases, or any other source of information addressing these cases or their circumstances. I hesitate to second-guess sincere reports, but will acknowledge I often wonder how accurate the reporting is, and more particularly I wonder if the source has missed or confused or otherwise misunderstood something.
My doubts aside, there have been enough of these reports to suggest that at least sometimes this does happen: a 44(1) Report is issued at the PoE and not promptly followed by an interview with a Minister's Delegate, leaving the PR in a kind of limbo . . . since once the 44(1) Report has been issued the PR's days in Canada after that will not count toward complying with the RO.
In particular, we know what Regulation 62 in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations prescribes. Days in Canada AFTER the issuance of a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility for a failure to comply with the RO do NOT count toward RO compliance. So, once the 44(1) Report has been issued, no matter how long it takes for there to be an interview with and decision from a Minister's Delegate, the PR's legal status, vis-à-vis compliance with the Residency Obligation, is static based on the date the 44(1) Report was issued.
Thus, technically, if there is no interview for a year, if and when there is finally an interview, the Minister's Delegate first determines if the 44(1) Report was valid in law. That decision should technically depend on days in Canada prior to the date the 44(1) Report was issued, no credit for having stayed in Canada since then. If the Report is determined to have been valid in law, the Minister's Delegate can then, must then, evaluate H&C factors and in this evaluation the days in Canada since the Report was issued can be considered a positive factor weighing in favour of allowing the PR to keep status.
How in practice, in actual cases, this goes, is not at all clear. Even if the reports are largely accurate, the details are scarce and follow-up reporting is at best rare.
My sense is that the longer it goes before there is an interview with the Minister's Delegate, and the longer it is before a Removal Order is issued, as long as the PR is staying in Canada that should, ordinarily, generally, that should push things favourably for the PR, at the least in terms of H&C factors. Subject of course to other big factors, with the extent of the actual breach looming very large.
The thing to be clear about, however, is the presumption that three years is long enough to accommodate any and all of these contingencies. Canadian PR status is not open to everyone. Similarly, keeping PR status may not be suitable for all those who are granted such status. Whether you agree with the law or not, it represents the adopted immigration policy for Canada.
