On the contrary . . . Those who do even a modicum of homework know a good deal about reasons for allowing PRs to retain their status despite meeting the definition of inadmissible due to a breach of the RO. A lot of this information has been shared in this forum.
I am nowhere near alone among those who do the homework and know many of the specific reasons in scores of actual cases, covering a wide range of RO enforcement decisions, including border official actions attendant Port-of-Entry examinations of PRs returning to Canada, since much of the reasoning is stated in officially published IAD and Federal Court decisions regarding the RO and its enforcement, and this includes a lot of detail in regards to reasons for allowing PRs to retain their status despite meeting the definition of inadmissible due to a breach of the RO.
In addition to using that extensive source of information, about actual cases, to help better understand the applicable law, including how it is interpreted and applied, that information also provides guide rails for assessing anecdotal accounts, which in turn, when taken in context aided by these guard rails, are also an important source of information illuminating the reasons underlying government decision making in regards to RO enforcement, ranging from the lenient exercise of discretion to formal evaluations of H&C considerations.
For those paying much attention at all, there is no doubt about how, as @canuck78 noted, covid was previously a bigger, more frequent reason, for allowing PRs in RO breach to keep their status (for "overlooking" a RO breach), while this year is far less likely to carry much weight at all. Some reasons among many reasons many know.
