IRPA 28(2)(a)(ii) Calculation: Soft Landing Only + Co-habitation with Citizen Spouse Prior to Divorce

[Robert278462]

Hi everyone,

I am looking for an experienced or professional perspective on a specific residency obligation calculation. Please, no guesses—I need accurate legal or operational insights.

My Baseline Situation:

• I am a PR but I have never lived in Canada. I only completed a "soft landing" and immediately returned abroad. My physical days inside Canada stand at 0.
• My ex-spouse is a Canadian citizen.

The Timeline & Evidence:

• Past Timeline: We lived together continuously in a shared household outside Canada while legally married for roughly 16 months (approx. 480 days) before separating.
• Current Status: Our legal divorce was finalized recently, and our marriage has officially ended.

I have clear financial and residential evidence (joint bank accounts, municipal bills, lease, official divorce ruling) proving our cohabitation and marriage during that window.

My Question:Under IRPA Section 28(2)(a)(ii), do the accrued days we lived together while legally married count toward my residency obligation, despite me never living in Canada post-landing? Does a subsequent divorce retroactively impact or invalidate those accrued days?

Note: I am only looking to count the days accumulated up to the official date of the divorce ruling.

If you can reference specific IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) case law or IRCC Operational Guidelines regarding soft-landers using this exemption, I would highly appreciate it.

Thank you.

 

[Buletruck]

Hi everyone,

I am looking for an experienced or professional perspective on a specific residency obligation calculation. Please, no guesses—I need accurate legal or operational insights.

My Baseline Situation:

• I am a PR but I have never lived in Canada. I only completed a "soft landing" and immediately returned abroad. My physical days inside Canada stand at 0.
• My ex-spouse is a Canadian citizen.

The Timeline & Evidence:

• Past Timeline: We lived together continuously in a shared household outside Canada while legally married for roughly 16 months (approx. 480 days) before separating.
• Current Status: Our legal divorce was finalized recently, and our marriage has officially ended.

I have clear financial and residential evidence (joint bank accounts, municipal bills, lease, official divorce ruling) proving our cohabitation and marriage during that window.

My Question:Under IRPA Section 28(2)(a)(ii), do the accrued days we lived together while legally married count toward my residency obligation, despite me never living in Canada post-landing? Does a subsequent divorce retroactively impact or invalidate those accrued days?

Note: I am only looking to count the days accumulated up to the official date of the divorce ruling.

If you can reference specific IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) case law or IRCC Operational Guidelines regarding soft-landers using this exemption, I would highly appreciate it.

Thank you.

For legal and operational insights, you can research here:

https://www.canlii.org/#search/inde...d833cf6b73044e449826e772387c3933&indexLang=en

Or consult a lawyer.

Beyond that, this statement is probably going to be an issue:

"Note: I am only looking to count the days accumulated up to the official date of the divorce ruling."
Assuming IRCC uses Canadian law as its reference, divorce requires being separated for 12 months prior to submission for an uncontested divorce and another 3-6 months for a final decision. It's reasonable to assume that only days up to the separation date would be allowable, potentially eliminating at least 12-18 months of the time you wish to include.

I'd also argue that IRPA Section 28(2)(a)(ii) would be dependent on whether you were married prior to or after your initial landing (yes, there are debates about who followed whom, and the courts don't seem to have formed a consensus on it yet), so that may be a consideration.

With zero establishment, if you were sponsored by your spouse, and are now divorced, this requirement "might" become an impediment to counting days abroad with your spouse:

"

• if you’re a Canadian citizen living outside Canada, you must show that you plan to live in Canada when your sponsored relative becomes a permanent resident."

My $0.02, whether it's a guess or accurate, only IRCC or the courts can decide. I'm sure others will chime in, accurate or not.

 

[Robert278462]

For legal and operational insights, you can research here:

https://www.canlii.org/#search/indexLang=en&text=IRPA Section 28(2)(a)(ii)&resultIndex=131&searchId=2026-06-20T05:06:08:339/d833cf6b73044e449826e772387c3933&indexLang=en

Or consult a lawyer.

Beyond that, this statement is probably going to be an issue:

"Note: I am only looking to count the days accumulated up to the official date of the divorce ruling."
Assuming IRCC uses Canadian law as its reference, divorce requires being separated for 12 months prior to submission for an uncontested divorce and another 3-6 months for a final decision. It's reasonable to assume that only days up to the separation date would be allowable, potentially eliminating at least 12-18 months of the time you wish to include.

I'd also argue that IRPA Section 28(2)(a)(ii) would be dependent on whether you were married prior to or after your initial landing (yes, there are debates about who followed whom, and the courts don't seem to have formed a consensus on it yet), so that may be a consideration.

With zero establishment, if you were sponsored by your spouse, and are now divorced, this requirement "might" become an impediment to counting days abroad with your spouse:

"

• if you’re a Canadian citizen living outside Canada, you must show that you plan to live in Canada when your sponsored relative becomes a permanent resident."

My $0.02, whether it's a guess or accurate, only IRCC or the courts can decide. I'm sure others will chime in, accurate or not.

Thank you for the perspective and the CanLII resource.

To clarify a few critical points that change the legal context here:

• The 16-Month Window: The continuous co-habitation in our family home abroad lasted for exactly 16 months post-soft landing up until the day the final court decree was issued.
• Foreign Divorce Law: The marriage, co-habitation, and divorce took place entirely outside Canada. Under local family law, an uncontested divorce requires no prior legal separation period. We lived as a fully married couple in a shared household for that entire duration.
• Long-Term Marriage: Prior to this, we were married for over 15 years with Canadian citizen children. The ex-spouse is a Canadian by birth (born and raised 18+ years in Canada).
• Evidence: I have clear, continuous financial and residential evidence for that entire 16-month window prior to the final divorce ruling.

Given that a valid marriage and shared household existed every single day up until the foreign court's final decree, does IRCC have any legal basis to retroactively discount these accrued days?

If anyone can reference specific IAD cases regarding foreign divorces and IRPA 28(2)(a)(ii), I would highly appreciate it.

 

[armoured]

Given that a valid marriage and shared household existed every single day up until the foreign court's final decree, does IRCC have any legal basis to retroactively discount these accrued days?

Apart from the foreign divorce issue, IRCC can and occasionally does evaluate on basis that you did not reside in Canada at all after becoming a PR. Sometimes this is phrased as the accompanying issue (who-accompanied-whom also referred to although less commonly now), because can be looked at from point of view that the citizen did not (re)settle in Canada during this period at all, and hence no 'accompanying' even occurred. Possibly also from point of view that the sponsorship involved making some form of statement that the intent was to re-settle in Canada together (with children?) and that never happened.

A separate point: you are not clear about the timeline - you became a PR (soft landing), then resided together for ~16 months at which point divorce was finalized ... how long ago was it finalized? Is it very recent and you intend to move now? If so - almost no issue and you do not need the time together 'counted' at all (move to Canada on your still-valid card, no issue, stay for the required number of days.)

So I presume this was some time ago - if your PR card has already expired, the situation in practical terms may be entirely different. That information may feed into how they evaluate your situation. You'd need to provide more detail - and my suggestion would be to discuss this with a lawyer.

I know you're asking for specific legal background and info - my comments this is not that, how IRCC approaches can depend on the subjective evaluation by an officer. And what that evaluation is and as a result what happens procedurally and cost-wise can be very, very different.

You haven't specified but it also depends on your circumstances and what you wish to do / your needs. If you are returning to Canada to reside and no need to travel at all for two years, your home country passport (access via USA with no visa/ with visa?), for example - more easy situation than if you expect to need to travel a lot and need a valid PR card to do so. These are questions that aren't strictly legal but need to be considered (and can of course be discussed wtht a lawyer).

 

[dpenabill]

.

I am looking for an experienced or professional perspective on a specific residency obligation calculation.

For professional guidance, pay a lawyer to review your particular situation in detail. (Free consultations are worth little if any more than what is paid for them.)

I am not a Canadian lawyer. I am no immigration expert.

Note: I am only looking to count the days accumulated up to the official date of the divorce ruling.

Otherwise . . . what is confidently known includes . . . recognizing some aspects of your situation make it complicated and forecasting the outcome of a RO examination not certain. That is, there is not a definite answer as to whether you will get RO credit for those days up to the finalization of the divorce.

If there is a problem counting these days (up to finalization of divorce), it is not likely to be about the dates you were married. That is, in assessing a claim for RO credit for these days, the decision-maker should recognize there is a valid marriage for that period of time. The question is whether you, the PR, was "accompanying" your spouse during that period of time. @Buletruck noted this, referring to it as a potential "who followed whom" issue, which is about the various interpretations of "accompanying" which can be applied in a given case.

We typically think of the applicable law as definite, one thing, but that is not how it always works. In Federal Court decisions there are at least three different versions of what "accompanying" means, in regards to the exception for RO credit, and how it is actually applied by immigration officers and Immigration Appeal Division panels varies even more so.

I and others discuss many aspects of this, including observations based on many actual cases as reported in Federal Court decisions and IAD decisions, in a topic titled "Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE," where I say, for example, the following:

Accompanying-Canadian-Citizen-Spouse-Abroad Credit Toward RO, Generally:

When I started this topic over four years ago, I should have named it differently, giving it a title more clearly focused on what "accompanying" itself means. This is a bit tricky because so many of the cases frame the issue in who-accompanied-whom terms, whereas most of the time, for the vast majority of Canadian PR/citizen couples living abroad, it really does NOT matter who-accompanied-whom. As long as they have been living together in Canada and are living together abroad, there is little risk of any who-accompanied-whom questions or concerns. Even if it is obvious the couple is abroad for reasons specific to the PR (like PR's continuing employment in home country).

The challenge this issue has always posed is how to identify if and when a who-accompanied-whom question might arise.

In cases where this is an issue, and there are more than a few such cases, for some time now the Minister's representative (for IRCC, not necessarily PoE cases involving the Minister of Public Safety as the prosecuting party) has consistently advocated the credit depends on the PR accompanying the citizen spouse, and is NOT available if the citizen spouse accompanied the PR abroad. In contrast, IAD panels, and to some extent the Federal Courts, have reached different and sometimes contrary results.

The overriding threshold question is who, when, and why might a PR/citizen couple living abroad run into a who-accompanied-whom challenge. In short: who-accompanied-whom does not ordinarily matter, but it can matter and make the difference, if the question comes up and is being addressed.

There is no simple formula for apprehending when and why a PR might encounter problems getting this credit.

That quote is a little dated (from 2022). Even though the topic has not been updated with more recent reports of actual cases, overall we have seen little indications of changes affecting this credit.

@Buletruck also shared a link to a relevant CanII search, which includes numerous IAD decisions in actual cases interpreting what "accompanying" means and how it applies in a wide range of situations, many of which are discussed in the other topic, and including some that involve divorces.

Quoting one (Chan v Canada, 2021 CanLII 141637) might put things in perspective:

. . . although I accept that the Appellant was married to a Canadian citizen from June 1, 2014, to October 22, 2016, I do not find it likely that he was accompanying his spouse during the five-year period from November 9, 2015, to October 22, 2016.​

​

[15] I acknowledge the Appellant’s testimony that he and his spouse lived together until the date their divorce was finalized on October 22, 2016, and that they did not have a separation period where they lived apart but continued to stay in the same apartment in Hong Kong until they were divorced. However, I find that the Appellant’s testimony that he and his spouse continued to live together until their divorce was finalized on October 22, 2016, does not, in fact, establish that he was “accompanying” his spouse or that he and his spouse were “ordinarily resident” until that date.​

Gist of that: Even though the IAD accepted that the couple were married up to the date the divorce was finalized, and were living together, the IAD did not accept the PR got RO credit for those days because they were not days the PR was "accompanying" the citizen-spouse. That is, they were married, living together, but did not get RO credit because the PR was not "accompanying" their citizen spouse.

. . . In context: There are many ways in which that case is totally unlike yours. And that IAD decision does not mean that is what other decision-makers in the immigration system will decide . . . even in quite similar circumstances, let alone very different situations. Moreover, there were some particularly salient factors in the Chan case which, first of all, likely triggered a stricter approach to the RO compliance calculation, and second, circumstances which nonetheless facilitated the positive H&C outcome allowing Chan to keep his PR status.

But it does illustrate that RO credit can be denied for a period of time prior to the date a divorce is finalized, a time period similar to what you describe.

And it illustrates that what happens in an individual case can (and, by the way, often does) vary considerably depending on various circumstances in the specific individual's case. The circumstances which can influence how it goes include the situation in which RO compliance is being calculated. You offer no hint what the situation is likely to be when Canadian immigration officials review and calculate your compliance with the RO, but how it goes can depend on what that situation is, which includes particular details such as the number of days actually spent in Canada. How it goes can also be influenced by whether it is a PR TD application? a Port-of-Entry examination? An application to renew a PR card?

Summary: there are multiple aspects of your situation which could trigger a tougher examination and approach to allowing RO credit for days outside Canada, pursuant to the exception allowed for PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse. The divorce is just one. Never having settled in Canada another. There is no way to reliably forecast how Canadian immigration officials will approach a claim for the accompanying credit in your case, which in large part is because there are numerous undetermined factors that can and likely will influence how it goes, including which type of proceeding is involved.

Obviously, the sooner you make a move to Canada, to settle and stay, the better your odds of keeping PR status whether or not you get RO credit for the days prior to the divorce being finalized.

 

[canuck78]

.


For professional guidance, pay a lawyer to review your particular situation in detail. (Free consultations are worth little if any more than what is paid for them.)

I am not a Canadian lawyer. I am no immigration expert.



Otherwise . . . what is confidently known includes . . . recognizing some aspects of your situation make it complicated and forecasting the outcome of a RO examination not certain. That is, there is not a definite answer as to whether you will get RO credit for those days up to the finalization of the divorce.

If there is a problem counting these days (up to finalization of divorce), it is not likely to be about the dates you were married. That is, in assessing a claim for RO credit for these days, the decision-maker should recognize there is a valid marriage for that period of time. The question is whether you, the PR, was "accompanying" your spouse during that period of time. @Buletruck noted this, referring to it as a potential "who followed whom" issue, which is about the various interpretations of "accompanying" which can be applied in a given case.

We typically think of the applicable law as definite, one thing, but that is not how it always works. In Federal Court decisions there are at least three different versions of what "accompanying" means, in regards to the exception for RO credit, and how it is actually applied by immigration officers and Immigration Appeal Division panels varies even more so.

I and others discuss many aspects of this, including observations based on many actual cases as reported in Federal Court decisions and IAD decisions, in a topic titled "Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE," where I say, for example, the following:



That quote is a little dated (from 2022). Even though the topic has not been updated with more recent reports of actual cases, overall we have seen little indications of changes affecting this credit.

@Buletruck also shared a link to a relevant CanII search, which includes numerous IAD decisions in actual cases interpreting what "accompanying" means and how it applies in a wide range of situations, many of which are discussed in the other topic, and including some that involve divorces.

Quoting one (Chan v Canada, 2021 CanLII 141637) might put things in perspective:

. . . although I accept that the Appellant was married to a Canadian citizen from June 1, 2014, to October 22, 2016, I do not find it likely that he was accompanying his spouse during the five-year period from November 9, 2015, to October 22, 2016.​

​

[15] I acknowledge the Appellant’s testimony that he and his spouse lived together until the date their divorce was finalized on October 22, 2016, and that they did not have a separation period where they lived apart but continued to stay in the same apartment in Hong Kong until they were divorced. However, I find that the Appellant’s testimony that he and his spouse continued to live together until their divorce was finalized on October 22, 2016, does not, in fact, establish that he was “accompanying” his spouse or that he and his spouse were “ordinarily resident” until that date.​

Gist of that: Even though the IAD accepted that the couple were married up to the date the divorce was finalized, and were living together, the IAD did not accept the PR got RO credit for those days because they were not days the PR was "accompanying" the citizen-spouse. That is, they were married, living together, but did not get RO credit because the PR was not "accompanying" their citizen spouse.

. . . In context: There are many ways in which that case is totally unlike yours. And that IAD decision does not mean that is what other decision-makers in the immigration system will decide . . . even in quite similar circumstances, let alone very different situations. Moreover, there were some particularly salient factors in the Chan case which, first of all, likely triggered a stricter approach to the RO compliance calculation, and second, circumstances which nonetheless facilitated the positive H&C outcome allowing Chan to keep his PR status.

But it does illustrate that RO credit can be denied for a period of time prior to the date a divorce is finalized, a time period similar to what you describe.

And it illustrates that what happens in an individual case can (and, by the way, often does) vary considerably depending on various circumstances in the specific individual's case. The circumstances which can influence how it goes include the situation in which RO compliance is being calculated. You offer no hint what the situation is likely to be when Canadian immigration officials review and calculate your compliance with the RO, but how it goes can depend on what that situation is, which includes particular details such as the number of days actually spent in Canada. How it goes can also be influenced by whether it is a PR TD application? a Port-of-Entry examination? An application to renew a PR card?

Summary: there are multiple aspects of your situation which could trigger a tougher examination and approach to allowing RO credit for days outside Canada, pursuant to the exception allowed for PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse. The divorce is just one. Never having settled in Canada another. There is no way to reliably forecast how Canadian immigration officials will approach a claim for the accompanying credit in your case, which in large part is because there are numerous undetermined factors that can and likely will influence how it goes, including which type of proceeding is involved.

Obviously, the sooner you make a move to Canada, to settle and stay, the better your odds of keeping PR status whether or not you get RO credit for the days prior to the divorce being finalized.

Think the other big issue is that Canada has started requiring couples in this situation who have lived abroad for an extended period of time to show that they will be relocating to Canada. What evidence was provided could also be referenced. There should be proof that the entire family had started to make plans to return to Canada 16 months earlier when the wife got PR. After a long career abroad you start looking for new jobs, looking at housing costs and houses for sale in your price range, etc. Having never lived in Canada up to this point and having children who have never lived in Canada it would be quite strange to apply for PR 15 years into marriage with children who have only lived abroad unless there was a reason. My only guess would be that this has to do with children wanting to attend post-secondary studies in Canada and the mother wanting to accompany them. If the father never intended to return to Canada and has a longterm career or is business owner abroad then that also could be problematic for the whole PR application.

 

[dpenabill]

.

Think the other big issue is that Canada has started requiring couples in this situation who have lived abroad for an extended period of time to show that they will be relocating to Canada. What evidence was provided could also be referenced. There should be proof that the entire family had started to make plans to return to Canada 16 months earlier when the wife got PR.

Your observation might not be based on conflating different processes, but it is nonetheless confusing in regards to which processing you are discussing or how your observation applies to @Robert278462 (the OP). It is not clear what "situation" you are referring to here. In particular, so far as I can discern the Canadian government has not been requiring a PR "to show that they will be relocating to Canada," or even asking for information about plans or preparations to relocate to Canada, in processing an application for a PR TD or a RO compliance examination attendant a PoE screening or PR card application.

You appear to be referring to what a Canadian citizen not residing in Canada must intend to qualify as a family class sponsor, as required by the Regulations (pursuant to Section 130(2) IRPR). I have not reviewed the recent application or instructions for a family class sponsorship, so I do not know to what extent the citizen sponsor must affirm such intent, or provide information or supporting documentation showing such intent. In any event, that is not in play here since the OP is already a PR.

Similarly in regards to the rest of your observations . . .

After a long career abroad you start looking for new jobs, looking at housing costs and houses for sale in your price range, etc. Having never lived in Canada up to this point and having children who have never lived in Canada it would be quite strange to apply for PR 15 years into marriage with children who have only lived abroad unless there was a reason. My only guess would be that this has to do with children wanting to attend post-secondary studies in Canada and the mother wanting to accompany them. If the father never intended to return to Canada and has a longterm career or is business owner abroad then that also could be problematic for the whole PR application.

The OP is not asking questions about making a PR application. Does not matter how deeply IRCC might dive into a PR application in such circumstances, again because the OP is already a PR.

That Said . . .

Perhaps (speculating) your concern is about how these circumstances could influence whether IRCC (or, CBSA at a PoE) apprehends a credibility issue during a RO compliance examination, based on the couple not moving here despite the required intent to relocate here. (Even though it is a citizen sponsor, who is not in Canada, who must have that intent in order to qualify as a sponsor for a family member; not the applicant for PR.)

But in this regard it warrants remembering that all applicants for PR (primary applicants) must intend to come to Canada to establish a permanent residence here in order to qualify for a PR visa. Yet, scores and scores of those issued a PR visa do what we call a "soft-landing," meaning that just like the OP they come to Canada briefly, just long enough to go through the landing process, and then leave Canada . . . many leave for years . . . indeed, a significant percentage of RO compliance/enforcement queries in this forum are about soft-landing PRs who have delayed coming to Canada for nearly three years. (And more than a few significantly longer, thereby failing to comply with the RO which puts their PR status at risk.)

I have seen zero indication that any soft-landing PR has had their credibility challenged based on an IRCC or CBSA officer apprehending the PR misrepresented their intent to come here to establish a permanent residence in Canada. As long as they arrive here before breaching the RO, there does not appear to be any risk to their PR status.

Nonetheless . . . if your point is that overall the OP's situation, including the circumstances you describe, might invite an immigration officer conducting a RO compliance examination, and assessing whether to give the OP credit for days accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, to approach the OP with elevated concern, perhaps even skepticism . . . yeah, as I said to the OP, "some aspects of your situation make it complicated and forecasting the outcome of a RO examination not certain."

But there is little or no reason to apprehend the failure to relocate to Canada soon after getting PR would be, itself, an issue, let alone a big issue.

 

[canuck78]

.


Your observation might not be based on conflating different processes, but it is nonetheless confusing in regards to which processing you are discussing or how your observation applies to @Robert278462 (the OP). It is not clear what "situation" you are referring to here. In particular, so far as I can discern the Canadian government has not been requiring a PR "to show that they will be relocating to Canada," or even asking for information about plans or preparations to relocate to Canada, in processing an application for a PR TD or a RO compliance examination attendant a PoE screening or PR card application.

You appear to be referring to what a Canadian citizen not residing in Canada must intend to qualify as a family class sponsor, as required by the Regulations (pursuant to Section 130(2) IRPR). I have not reviewed the recent application or instructions for a family class sponsorship, so I do not know to what extent the citizen sponsor must affirm such intent, or provide information or supporting documentation showing such intent. In any event, that is not in play here since the OP is already a PR.

Similarly in regards to the rest of your observations . . .


The OP is not asking questions about making a PR application. Does not matter how deeply IRCC might dive into a PR application in such circumstances, again because the OP is already a PR.

That Said . . .

Perhaps (speculating) your concern is about how these circumstances could influence whether IRCC (or, CBSA at a PoE) apprehends a credibility issue during a RO compliance examination, based on the couple not moving here despite the required intent to relocate here. (Even though it is a citizen sponsor, who is not in Canada, who must have that intent in order to qualify as a sponsor for a family member; not the applicant for PR.)

But in this regard it warrants remembering that all applicants for PR (primary applicants) must intend to come to Canada to establish a permanent residence here in order to qualify for a PR visa. Yet, scores and scores of those issued a PR visa do what we call a "soft-landing," meaning that just like the OP they come to Canada briefly, just long enough to go through the landing process, and then leave Canada . . . many leave for years . . . indeed, a significant percentage of RO compliance/enforcement queries in this forum are about soft-landing PRs who have delayed coming to Canada for nearly three years. (And more than a few significantly longer, thereby failing to comply with the RO which puts their PR status at risk.)

I have seen zero indication that any soft-landing PR has had their credibility challenged based on an IRCC or CBSA officer apprehending the PR misrepresented their intent to come here to establish a permanent residence in Canada. As long as they arrive here before breaching the RO, there does not appear to be any risk to their PR status.

Nonetheless . . . if your point is that overall the OP's situation, including the circumstances you describe, might invite an immigration officer conducting a RO compliance examination, and assessing whether to give the OP credit for days accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, to approach the OP with elevated concern, perhaps even skepticism . . . yeah, as I said to the OP, "some aspects of your situation make it complicated and forecasting the outcome of a RO examination not certain."

But there is little or no reason to apprehend the failure to relocate to Canada soon after getting PR would be, itself, an issue, let alone a big issue.

Around 5 years ago citizens who were sponsoring family while living abroad started being required to provide proof that they would be moving to Canada because too many were never relocating to Canada. Many family members would do a soft landing and continue living aboard. If you don’t include enough proof in your application fairly common to be asked to provide concrete relocation plans before approval like housing search/arrangements, job search in Canada or confirmed job in Canada, notice to employer abroad, home sale abroad, etc. Being able to use time abroad with a spouse towards RO without actually living in Canada will likely be very challenging. If mother moves to Canada with the children without the Canadian citizen father there could also be concerns that the father misrepresented the status of the relationship or relocation plans during sponsorship. The fact that the sponsorship occurred after a long period abroad/being married, the children are likely approaching the age where they may want to attend post-secondary schooling in Canada and that divorce happened quite soon after receiving PR seems like fortuitous timing.

 

[Buletruck]

Around 5 years ago citizens who were sponsoring family while living abroad started being required to provide proof that they would be moving to Canada because too many were never relocating to Canada. Many family members would do a soft landing and continue living aboard. If you don’t include enough proof in your application fairly common to be asked to provide concrete relocation plans before approval like housing search/arrangements, job search in Canada or confirmed job in Canada, notice to employer abroad, home sale abroad, etc. Being able to use time abroad with a spouse towards RO without actually living in Canada will likely be very challenging. If mother moves to Canada with the children without the Canadian citizen father there could also be concerns that the father misrepresented the status of the relationship or relocation plans during sponsorship. The fact that the sponsorship occurred after a long period abroad/being married, the children are likely approaching the age where they may want to attend post-secondary schooling in Canada and that divorce happened quite soon after receiving PR seems like fortuitous timing.

So, personal experience of sponsoring during that time....sponsored spouse from Indonesia, the only proof of intent to reside in Canada was a note about staying with my sister temporarily. No job search, no job application, nada. Arrived in Canada (she was on a TRV) a month before the COPR, got a job offer in Thailand, landed Nov 28, and moved to Thailand a week later. Zero issues. No scrutiny during any entry (and there were many). So I doubt, other than making a few arbitrary comments in some policy post, they spent much time enforcing that requirement, particularly since, as a Canadian, I'm not obligated to remain in Canada. And I didn't tell CRA I was leaving either.....and they didn't care.

 

[canuck78]

So, personal experience of sponsoring during that time....sponsored spouse from Indonesia, the only proof of intent to reside in Canada was a note about staying with my sister temporarily. No job search, no job application, nada. Arrived in Canada (she was on a TRV) a month before the COPR, got a job offer in Thailand, landed Nov 28, and moved to Thailand a week later. Zero issues. No scrutiny during any entry (and there were many). So I doubt, other than making a few arbitrary comments in some policy post, they spent much time enforcing that requirement, particularly since, as a Canadian, I'm not obligated to remain in Canada. And I didn't tell CRA I was leaving either.....and they didn't care.

You had landed in Canada as well as the person you sponsored before getting COPR which could have been the reason more information wasn’t said. That said your spouse may end not being able to count RO for PR having never actually settled in Canada. At least the Canadian citizen is the one who had the job offer abroad. What was the point in sponsoring?

 

[Buletruck]

You had landed in Canada as well as the person you sponsored before getting COPR which could have been the reason more information wasn’t said. That said your spouse may end not being able to count RO for PR having never actually settled in Canada. At least the Canadian citizen is the one who had the job offer abroad. What was the point in sponsoring?

The point was to get her PR and settle in Canada. But shit happens.
As far as renewal, not an issue since she's now a citizen.
The point of the post was to highlight that anicdotal statements don't represent the fact that IRCC, by its own admissions, didn't really follow its own policies, despite what they required. I actually signed a document condirming we would settle in Canada in the application once her PR was recieved. We didn't initially and it didn't make a difference to her previous PR renewal and subsiquent citizenship application or during any entry. They don't go out of their way to find ways to pursue RO. Just review some of the cases on Canlii regarding RO appeals that are upheld and you can see breaches need to be pretty egregious to be dismissed. That's just reality.

 

[armoured]

The point was to get her PR and settle in Canada. But shit happens.
As far as renewal, not an issue since she's now a citizen.

Not sure I understand timing of your spouse's case, but if you left around the time your spouse became the PR and she subsequently became a citizen - it sounds like she must have remained in Canada? (At least more of the time / enough time to accumulate 1095 days physically in Canada). Once the applicant becomes a PR, they do not need the sponsor being in Canada to remain compliant (and indeed get citizenship) - the whereabouts of the spouse/sponsor are only relevant if they are claiming time together abroad for RO purposes.* (As for the implication by @canuck78 that there's something like misrepresentation - as you put it, shit happens - changing your mind esp due to actual changes in the world like a job offer is not misrepresentation).

* It's possible there are some circumstances where it might matter, eg if the marriage was subsequently investigated by IRCC as being a fraudulent one for immigration purposes, so spouse whereabouts might be relevant in some circumstances. But in a PR card renewal app you don't provide info/evidence about whereabouts (or possibly even existence?) of spouse except in context of claiming time together abroad.

So circumstances quite different between your case and the one being discussed here, which is whether days abroad can be counted towards RO (only for PR purposes) - it seems that neither the sponsor nor the applicant spent any time in Canada (apart from soft landing) because they continued to reside together abroad until the day they were divorced.

That said, I agree overall with your point that IRCC doesn't go out of its way to 'enforce' these points, and while some or all of the thoughts and reasons @canuck78 proposes might go through the mind of an IRCC officer evaluating a case, there's little to no eivdence that most or any of that is 'policy' in any meaningful sense.

Or put differently, it sounds more to me like a wishlist of things that some would like to see considered or taken into account, that is, projection of policy preferences on to IRCC. Well, I'd like a pony, but wishing it doesn't make it so - and I see no evidence that IRCC is evaluating applications the way @canuck78 thinks they might or should (apart from perhaps being 'more strict').

That doesn't mean this case is simple: the OP seems to want to claim time residing together with a spouse up until the date of divorce, AND it seems that the applicant/PR resided abroad for some (possibly lengthy) time without spouse after the divorce (and may not have a valid PR card), AND neither sponsor nor PR had any time to speak of in Canada before or after the landing procedures. I don't think this even (necessarily) hinges upon the narrow question or framing that the OP thinks it does, i.e. whether or not time abroad with a citizen-spouse from whom the PR was subsequently divorced 'counts' for RO purposes. (It might - but might not, or might only be decided in context of other facts, as it's possible the 'accompanying' issue gets looked at).

I don't know how this gets decided by IRCC (or in subsequent appeals, should it come to that). @canuck78 seems to imply that the 'sponsor spouse abroad' procedures might somehow lead to a misrepresentation finding or allegation (I guess?). I agree with you, @Buletruck, that this seems not just highly speculative, but outright unlikely (can't exclude it might occur to an officer but the 'shit happens' defence would prevail - it sure does happen).

That said: it seems to me this doesn't require some sort of misrepresentation finding for the RO days abroad to not be approved. The idea that IRCC is going through the thought process that @canuck78 seems to have about fortuitous timing and all that - well, again, projection and/or speculative. Maybe they would and that interpretation would colour their view of the other issues - but again, speculative, and no evidence they're doing so in a consistent way.

Anyway - OP has not provided more info to fill in the gaps. Without that info, or even with it - this is mostly speculative. Lawyers may be needed - even if only to discuss while being open about all the details and real options that may be preferable to relying upon the time-with-spouse-abroad frame, based on actual circumstances.

 

[Buletruck]

Agreed that our circumstance and that of the OP are not related, other than the intent to settle. The OP has far more complexity to deal with. It was more to highlight lived experience vs anicdotal statements about settlement obligations. The timing is slightly farther out than the 5 years stated (although the requirement to settle was an obligation at the time and PR renewal occurred during the 5 year "crackdown" that's been proposed). I'd go as far as to argue that, given IRCC allows time abroad living with a Canadian spouse for RO, they are essentially equating living with a Canadian is equal to residing in Canada, at least as far as RO, nullifying the requirement to be settle in country and thus satisfying that obligation. On a list of concerns regarding meeting RO, settlement would, in my mind, fall somewhere between what colour socks I should wear to summit the application and butter or jam on my toast that morning.

I agree that these are simply unsupported interpretations of a general understanding of policy. Everyone has their personal view and opinion of how they feel or expect IRCC to address things. but most don't assess the nuances of policy, law and political mandates in their final analysis. And as I've said before, I don't get to make any of these decisions (as I suspect no one else posting does), so it doesn't really matter what I think, other than at election time.

 

[dpenabill]

.

So, personal experience of sponsoring during that time . . . No scrutiny during any entry (and there were many). So I doubt, other than making a few arbitrary comments in some policy post, they spent much time enforcing that requirement, particularly since, as a Canadian, I'm not obligated to remain in Canada. And I didn't tell CRA I was leaving either.....and they didn't care.

There are cases in which IRCC requested additional information from sponsors to show they had plans to relocate to Canada, going back more than five years, more than a decade. These are illustrated by the relatively unusual, but occasional anecdotal reports attendant queries in this forum, and illustrated by some official decisions in cases where the sponsorship was denied and the sponsor appealed.

Note: the respective intent requirement for a citizen sponsor living outside Canada, to "reside in Canada when the foreign national becomes a permanent resident," is similar to the general requirement that to qualify for PR a FN must intend to be "coming to Canada to establish permanent residence." These requirements are prescribed by regulation, respectively, in section 130(2) IRPR (sponsor's required intent) and section 70(1)(b) IRPR (general intent to establish residence in Canada requirement for primary PR applicant).

Even though it is unusual, probably rare and I cannot recall it coming up in this forum, I have also seen cases in which a PR applicant has been asked to provide more information and supporting documents to demonstrate they intend to establish permanent residence in Canada. See, for example, Elfadul v Canada, 2019 CanLII 145852 (noting, however, the IAD ruled the denial of PR in this case was invalid in law).

This is all within the scope of what-could-happen, not what often happens, not what is likely to happen.

Around 5 years ago citizens who were sponsoring family while living abroad started being required to provide proof that they would be moving to Canada because too many were never relocating to Canada. Many family members would do a soft landing and continue living aboard. If you don’t include enough proof in your application fairly common to be asked to provide concrete relocation plans before approval like housing search/arrangements, job search in Canada or confirmed job in Canada, notice to employer abroad, home sale abroad, etc.

Actually some Canadian citizens applying to sponsor family have been requested to provide various amounts of information regarding their intent or "plan" to relocate to Canada going back much more than five years, more than a decade.

The intent, or a plan to relocate, has been required of citizen sponsors living outside Canada since the regulation, Section 130(2) IRPR, was adopted in March 2006 (same time as section 70(1)(b) IRPR.

That is about a Canadian citizen qualifying to sponsor family for PR, and goes to whether sponsorship is approved and ultimately whether a PR visa is issued to the family member being sponsored.

But that is not an issue, let alone a big issue, in the OP's situation. The sponsored PR application process was completed. The OP was granted PR and landed.

That is not related to calculating RO compliance.

Being able to use time abroad with a spouse towards RO without actually living in Canada will likely be very challenging.

Actually we do not know this is "likely." Likely it is not likely. Could be a challenge; might not be. There's a risk. But to say it is "likely" is overstating the risk, both generally, and for the OP.

That is, there is no indication that generally it is "likely" accompanying credit will be denied. Anecdotal reports of accompanying credit being denied in these circumstances are scarce at most. There are only a few published decisions regarding actual cases in which IRCC has parsed and limited the accompanying credit this way, and that almost exclusively involves IRCC overseas visa offices processing and denying a PR TD application (attendant which there is a presumption that PR status is not valid); only rarely, at most, internal IRCC offices processing PR card applications, and rarely CBSA immigration officers examining PRs arriving here (moreover, as I have noted and discussed elsewhere, the Public Safety Minister's representative rarely argues for the more strict interpretation and application of "accompanying" in hearings before the IAD or FCs, unlike representatives for the Minister of IRCC prosecuting appeals from overseas visa offices). IAD and Federal Court decisions are split, with several just applying the applicable regulation, section 61(4) IRPR, specifying that for purposes of this credit a PR is accompanying their spouse/partner "on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with" their citizen spouse, no parsing what constitutes accompanying otherwise.

And in the OP's particular situation, how it goes will likely depend on the context for the RO calculation, what sort of proceeding is involved, with the highest risk being if the OP's PR card is expired and the OP is applying for a PR TD. Warrants noting, for the OP, if they have not come and settled in Canada before their PR card expires, they will be in breach of the RO, anyway, even if allowed accompanying credit for those days up to the finalization of the divorce.

The OP has not hinted in what context they anticipate a RO compliance calculation; which it is, and when, will potentially have a lot of influence in how it goes.

There are, for example, cases in which a PR did not live in Canada, was denied accompanying credit toward the RO (in a PR TD application) for days living abroad with the PR's Canadian citizen spouse, but that decision was ruled to be invalid in law, the IAD ruling the PR should have been allowed the accompanying credit; see Raheja v Canada, 2017 CanLII 36612, https://canlii.ca/t/h47r3 .

And recent decisions may be leaning toward allowing the credit even in visa office PR TD cases. See, for example, an IAD decision earlier this year, Chebbi v Canada, 2026 CanLII 58842, decided March 16, 2026. This individual spent, at most (the numbers do not quite add up), ten days in Canada following landing/becoming a PR in March 2019 and/or ten days in Canada within the five years prior to a May 22, 2025 application for a PR TD, but was given RO credit for days she was living with a Canadian citizen partner in 2024 and 2025. There are some anomalies, some of the numbers or dates seem off (could be the translation), and even though she got the RO accompanying credit, that still left her way short of compliance and she lost PR status . . . but what stands out is that the visa office allowed the accompanying credit despite the fact she had not lived in Canada as a PR, and she met and married her husband later, and the IAD likewise gave her this credit, no discussion or hint of any issue qualifying for the credit, not even from the Minister's representative.

If mother moves to Canada with the children without the Canadian citizen father there could also be concerns that the father misrepresented the status of the relationship or relocation plans during sponsorship. The fact that the sponsorship occurred after a long period abroad/being married, the children are likely approaching the age where they may want to attend post-secondary schooling in Canada and that divorce happened quite soon after receiving PR seems like fortuitous timing.

At most this might be a tangential credibility factor in the OP's situation. Not an issue in itself.

In particular there is little, if any indication at all, that IRCC has alleged misrepresentation against any PRs based on their sponsor's representation of an intent to relocate to Canada, in their application to sponsor, when the sponsor has failed to relocate to Canada. Moreover, here the OP's children can move to Canada whenever they like, to attend secondary schooling in Canada or for any other reason (non-criminal reason of course). With or without either of the parents. The OP's children are Canadian citizens.

Again, the risk appears higher for PRs making a PR TD application than in RO compliance examinations in other contexts. So, for the OP it is how long after the divorce they make the move to Canada that looms large, since even if the OP is allowed accompanying credit, that is not enough for the OP to meet the RO. So, the sooner the OP makes a move to Canada, to settle and stay, the better the OP's odds of keeping PR status whether or not they get RO credit for the days prior to the divorce being finalized.