This is not the typical scenario but based on forum reporting it is not uncommon either.
Unfortunately, PRs involved in these situations are often not well acquainted with the formalities involved and even when they are reporting their experience here, let alone when the experience is reported second-hand, important details are often overlooked or misunderstood or otherwise tangled in uncertainties.
Most of these descriptions of the PoE event (noting that how it actually happened might be yet something else) tend to be one of the following:
-- a 44(1) Report was formally written and issued, and then another officer issued a Departure Order
-- a 44(1) Report was formally written and issued, but a Minister's Delegate was not available, so CBSA will follow-up later, typically sooner rather than much later
-- no formal 44(1) Report was issued, but the border officials will prepare a referral (a report but not the official 44(1) Report) and send that to the respective IRCC local office depending on either the PoE or the PR's contact information
-- sometimes this largely amounts to a warning to the PR and all that happened was the PR's records flagged
For the PRs affected, it is important to know which of these is what happened. Especially if either of the first two happened (a formal 44(1) Report being issued). In any case it is absolutely critical for the PRs to have given accurate contact information. Attempts to give notice based on the contact information the border officials were given can result in binding consequences on the PRs even if they do not actually get notice.
Telephone calls to the Help Centre about this cannot be relied upon.
There is a fair chance that this was the third alternative I described above. Reports about this are sporadic. Again, having provided accurate contact information is really important. It appears that many times all this does is FLAG the PR's file. So if the PR stays, does not leave Canada, and does not make any applications to IRCC, for as long as it takes for that PR to get into compliance with the RO, the PR can in effect CURE the breach and by doing that save PR status. However, IRCC could proceed with a RO determination even if the border officials did not write a formal 44(1) Report, and again the PR may be accountable for any failure of any notice given based on the contact information collected or confirmed by the border officials.
And it could have been the fourth alternative. Which would mean the PRs are at low risk for further enforcement action so long as they STAY and do not make any applications to IRCC until AFTER they are in compliance with the RO.
BUT without some certainty as to what precisely happened, we can only speculate beyond the above. Note, for example, if a 44(1) Report was issued, but no Minister's Delegate was then available, there are various paths things could go from there. And it matters a great deal whether the contact information the PRs provided would in fact mean that CBSA or IRCC attempts to contact them would be successful. A lot can hinge on this.
I would offer this: if there is any chance a formal 44(1) Report was issued, it would be a good idea for the PRs to at least consult with a reputable, experienced immigration lawyer.
