Overall, in cases that stray outside the standard boundaries and involve complicated issues, particularly those that involve a RO breach, no one here can reliably quantify the odds. There are, however, numerous factors known to influence the odds. Like in RO breach cases, the bigger the breach the greater the risk. How these things go depends on the particular details in the individual case. The one for sure safe approach is to spend enough days in Canada to comply with the RO based on those days. For couples living outside Canada during the process of the citizen sponsoring the Foreign National, the for sure approach is to follow through with the plan to relocate to Canada soon enough after getting PR status to avoid any suspicion of misrepresentation as to intent and the plan.
Otherwise, the sooner you come to Canada to stay the better the odds all goes smoothly, no inadmissibility proceedings.
In particular . . .
Re RO credit for days outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse/partner:
This is actually a big and complicated subject. It is discussed at length and in-depth in a topic I started more than 7 years ago and where just a year ago I posted this:
Probably no need, not worth your time, to wrestle much with all that. It appears you understand the basics sufficient to guide your decision-making. The technicalities are not likely to have much influence in that decision-making. (And the technicalities regarding this credit are plagued by various inconsistent interpretations and uneven application, so not a good forecast guide.)
There may be enough risk of not getting the credit to warrant avoiding much more delay than necessary in coming to Canada. But as has been discussed already, your odds of being OK are probably quite good and the worst case scenario (an unlikely scenario) is having to be sponsored again if per chance you were to lose PR status due to a RO breach.
In terms of the risks re the accompanying credit in particular,
@canuck references an important factor, that you were not settled together in Canada before moving abroad but, rather, were settled outside Canada, so an officer with a strict approach could conclude you did not accompany one another in going outside Canada and deny RO credit for days outside Canada together. The risk of that is very difficult to assess. The fact that your partner sponsored you and that you have been living together as a family, including children, carries considerable weight in your favour. (Most of the known, actual cases in which couples living together have been denied the accompanying credit, involve egregious facts, and typically what at least appears to be gaming the system if not blatant abuse.)
As I said about this subject more than seven years ago, in regards to situations in which qualifying for the credit might be challenged at a PoE:
That has not changed much so far as we can discern. That is about simply traveling together when coming to Canada.
Moreover, it is also still largely true, as far as has been seen, that
Hard to say, in contrast, how much negative credibility influence there could be (in the eye of a not-so-friendly CBSA officer) based on a potential perception that the representations made in the sponsored PR application, regarding having a plan and the intent to move to Canada when you got PR status (which was necessary to qualify for a grant of PR status when the sponsor is not living in Canada), were less than honest. Of course you undoubtedly have good defenses rebutting any allegation of misrepresentations as to the plan to move here upon being granted PR status, since stuff happens, circumstances change, plans change, expectations fall through requiring adaptation, all sorts of real life stuff, and in contrast settling in Canada is still your real plan (as I understand this based on your posts), just taking a bit long to get it done. But being on defense is less than ideal, particularly since credibility can loom large even if the examining officer does not explicitly allege deception or misrepresentation. So it is a factor, one more factor among many.
So I understand
@canuck's further comment
in terms of recognizing there is some risk in delaying the trip to Canada (to stay).
But that does not mean you shouldn't claim the credit. I do not mean to speak for what
@canuck78's thinking on this is, but will say that to the extent there is a risk you do not get this credit, that is one of many things to consider in your decision-making, in balancing competing factors, in determining when to make the move.
Otherwise, if and when your RO compliance is being examined, such as in a Secondary examination at the Port-of-Entry (PoE), or attendant a PR card application, claim the credit.
Worst Case Scenario:
Don't overlook the platitudes, like "
hope for the best, plan for the worst," or simply be prepared to deal with what could happen.
In regards to that, the worst case scenario,
which is unlikely if you get here while only three or so months in breach of the RO (if you are in breach because credit for accompanying citizen partner is not allowed), is (1) being issued a Removal Order at the PoE (you would still be allowed to enter Canada and still be a PR as long as you have the right of appeal and pending an appeal), (2) losing the appeal, and (3) having to be sponsored again. Again, that seems rather unlikely even if per chance you were issued a Removal Order upon arrival here, particularly if you obtain help from a lawyer in prosecuting the appeal and you stay and settle here while the appeal is pending. This does not apply equally across the board for all PRs issued a Removal Order based on being inadmissible for a RO breach, no where near equally. Family ties in Canada in conjunction with demonstrating real intent to settle and stay in Canada, and a colorable argument for the accompanying partner credit, and the relatively small breach of the RO, are among factors that should carry considerable weight in the H&C analysis and favour allowing you to keep PR status even if the accompanying credit is denied.
In contrast, another reason to be optimistic about getting accompanying RO credit is that all but a very few of the known cases, in which a PR living with a citizen partner/spouse ("
ordinarily residing" with in IRCC lingo) has been denied accompanying RO credit, arose in regards to applications for a PR Travel Document. Not PoE examinations. Of course there is the outside risk of running into a real (pick an epithet), one of CBSA's most aggressively strict officers, but a Removal Order will not be issued upon arrival here unless
two CBSA officers acting independently conclude you are in breach, and even if both conclude you are in breach (even if both conclude you do not get the accompanying RO credit), before a Removal Order can be issued you still get to make the case you should be allowed to keep PR for H&C reasons (for you perhaps emphasizing difficulty in finding employment slowing your return, and family ties, and intent to settle in Canada, and you have not breached the RO by a lot).
All that
caution-side stuff aside, if you are traveling as a family it is hard to imagine even being questioned about RO compliance, and even if you are questioned, just referring to having been living with your partner who is a Canadian citizen, and now you are all coming to Canada to stay and settle as soon as you could arrange it, should be enough to resolve concerns and send you on your way.
