PR Renewal Residency Clarification

[KuttyFernandez]

Hello, I would like to seek some clarification regarding the PR renewal process (not citizenship).

I am currently a PR holder, and before permanently moving to Canada I had already spent a significant number of days outside the country (initially Landed and left), which means part of my initial five-year period has already been used. I now have approximately three years remaining, during which I understand I need to complete at least two years in Canada in order to meet the residency obligation for PR renewal.

After reviewing forums and the official government website, I came across certain situations where time spent outside Canada may still count toward PR renewal (not citizenship). One example mentioned is when a person is employed by a Canadian company.

My question is: if I register a federal company in Toronto under my name, place myself on payroll as an employee, and then travel outside Canada for work purposes (I work in the events/exhibitions industry and regularly travel internationally for client projects for 3-4 months in a year), could those days abroad potentially be counted toward my PR residency obligation?

Has anyone been in a similar position or successfully done this before?

Also, to qualify as a “Canadian company,” are there any specific requirements beyond incorporation, licensing, maintaining an office, and filing taxes? For example, can a company still qualify if it has only one permanent employee, while additional part-time staff are hired only during event periods?

I would appreciate any guidance or practical experience others may be able to share. My goal is to better understand whether there are legitimate ways for my time outside Canada to count toward PR renewal requirements.

Thanks in Advance

 

[armoured]

Hello, I would like to seek some clarification regarding the PR renewal process (not citizenship).

I am currently a PR holder, and before permanently moving to Canada I had already spent a significant number of days outside the country (initially Landed and left), which means part of my initial five-year period has already been used. I now have approximately three years remaining, during which I understand I need to complete at least two years in Canada in order to meet the residency obligation for PR renewal.

After reviewing forums and the official government website, I came across certain situations where time spent outside Canada may still count toward PR renewal (not citizenship). One example mentioned is when a person is employed by a Canadian company.

My question is: if I register a federal company in Toronto under my name, place myself on payroll as an employee, and then travel outside Canada for work purposes (I work in the events/exhibitions industry and regularly travel internationally for client projects for 3-4 months in a year), could those days abroad potentially be counted toward my PR residency obligation?

Has anyone been in a similar position or successfully done this before?

Also, to qualify as a “Canadian company,” are there any specific requirements beyond incorporation, licensing, maintaining an office, and filing taxes? For example, can a company still qualify if it has only one permanent employee, while additional part-time staff are hired only during event periods?

I would appreciate any guidance or practical experience others may be able to share. My goal is to better understand whether there are legitimate ways for my time outside Canada to count toward PR renewal requirements.

Thanks in Advance

It will not work and there are no legitimate ways to make this work with your own company. They will look through the ownership and control.

 

[dpenabill]

.

My question is: if I register a federal company in Toronto under my name, place myself on payroll as an employee, and then travel outside Canada for work purposes (I work in the events/exhibitions industry and regularly travel internationally for client projects for 3-4 months in a year), could those days abroad potentially be counted toward my PR residency obligation?

Has anyone been in a similar position or successfully done this before?

Also, to qualify as a “Canadian company,” are there any specific requirements beyond incorporation, licensing, maintaining an office, and filing taxes? For example, can a company still qualify if it has only one permanent employee, while additional part-time staff are hired only during event periods?

I would appreciate any guidance or practical experience others may be able to share. My goal is to better understand whether there are legitimate ways for my time outside Canada to count toward PR renewal requirements.

In general, the Residency Obligation exception allowing credit toward meeting the RO for time outside Canada while "employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business," pursuant to Section 28 2(2)(a)((iii) IRPA, is narrowly applied and those PRs relying on such credit to comply with the RO are typically subject to more probing scrutiny, if not strict scrutiny.

So I do not disagree with the observation that what you describe will not work, even though I would say it less definitively, saying that most likely it will not work. Said either way, that is an opinion.

In particular . . .

It cannot be emphasized enough that even if a job is definitively for a Canadian business, it can be extremely tricky to know whether a credit will be given toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation for any long-term employment abroad.

Thus, it warrants emphasizing that before taking a long-term job at a location abroad, or at the very least before relying on getting PR RO credit for any time employed abroad, obtaining the opinion of a qualified, reputable, Canadian immigration lawyer is the prudent thing to do.

What you describe is not likely to even qualify as a "Canadian business," let alone meet the additional requirements for your employment outside Canada to qualify as a temporary assignment (which it must in order to be allowed the credit) even if the "employer" passes as a Canadian business.

An important aspect of qualifying for the working-abroad RO credit is that the PR has "the burden of establishing he is employed by a Canadian business that does not primarily serve to allow a permanent resident to comply with their residency obligation while residing outside Canada." This quote is from an IAD decision, Zhou v Canada, 2018 CanLII 27228, http://canlii.ca/t/hrbbj but it is citing Regulation 61(2) and there are scores and scores of other sources stating this or its equivalent. So, when you say your goal is, in effect, to look for a "legitimate" way to count time outside Canada, be aware that is precisely one of the things IRCC makes a concerted effort to identify and exclude from this credit. And there is no shortage of actual cases illustrating how this is applied.

More explanation with citation of sources to come . . .

 

[dpenabill]

.

My question is: if I register a federal company in Toronto . . .

My goal is to better understand whether there are legitimate ways for my time outside Canada to count toward PR renewal requirements.

Longer Explanation Toward Offering A Better Understanding . . .

Given the framing of your question in terms of wanting to better understand the exception pursuant to which a PR can get credit for time outside Canada, I will offer some information (not mere opinion) with reference to authoritative and reliable sources. However, this credit and how it works is subject to a lot of twists, turns, odd angles, tortuous technicalities, and otherwise complex elements, so rather than trying to repeat what I have previously discussed, I will mostly reference the older discussions in which I have addressed the credit, focusing on sources for this information.

So, for the particular details as to some of the sources, see the previous discussions I reference below, with links, where I go into depth about this exception and cite and link accounts of actual cases in official sources. (Link to respective discussions is the up-arrow next to forum member's username at the beginning of the quote.) See where I say:

For Reliable Accounts of Actual Cases Re working-abroad-credit See The Following:

Federal Court decisions:
Baraily v. Canada (CIC), 2014 FC 460 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/g6z62
Bi v. Canada (CIC), 2012 FC 293 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fqtsz
Durve v. Canada (CIC), 2011 FC 995 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fmqvt
Durve v. Canada (CIC), [2015] 2014 FC 874 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/g90xc
He -- Canada (CIC) v. He, 2018 FC 457 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hrv9t
Jiang -- Canada (CIC) v. Jiang, 2011 FC 349 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/flfrk
Waraich v. Canada (CIC), 2018 FC 307 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hrbft


IAD decisions:
Adeosun v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 79071 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/htn90
Alkhen v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 107669 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hw2jt
Belghiti v Canada (Pub Saf.), 2016 CanLII 54523 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/gt2g9
Durve v. Canada (CIC), 2013 CanLII 44900 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/fxgkq
Faeli v. Canada (CIC), 2005 CanLII 56914 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/1rnd9
Falsafi v. Canada (CIC), 2012 CanLII 92972 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/fvr0p
Gencoglu v Canada (CIC), 2016 CanLII 97304 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/gx80k
He v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 118633 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hwjnm
Imanzadeh v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 102055 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hvtkg
Janotta v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 41729 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hrzg5
Kanwal v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 107687 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hw2kp
Kapoor v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 112319 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hw8jt
Nagappan v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 117109 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hwgqs
Okunbo v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 121460 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hwmzs
Onianwah v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 117112 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hwgq6
Shah v. Canada (CIC), 2011 CanLII 55976 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/fn1xt
Shen v Canada (CIC), 2017 CanLII 56623 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/h5pqz
Shoaee v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 72635 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/htbx7
Schroeder v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 54709 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hskn3
Siek v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 79718 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/htnww
Tripathy v Canada (Pub Saf), 2015 CanLII 107860 (CA IRB) http://canlii.ca/t/h30s4
Wang v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 57545 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hsp86
Wei v Canada (Pub Saf.), 2016 CanLII 92583 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/gwpzn
Xin v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 74069 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/htdrb
Zeng v. Canada (CIC), 2012 CanLII 12935 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/fqkw9
Zhou v Canada (Pub Saf.), 2018 CanLII 27228 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hrbbj

This is a MERE SAMPLE. But it is a selective sample chosen from among many, many other official decisions.

That is quoted from just one post among many in that discussion in a thread I started to specifically review, in-depth and at-length, the working abroad RO credit exception. I cite and link many other sources, including governing statutory provisions, regulations, and other IRCC resources, in addition to relevant decisions in actual cases cited and linked in the quote above. Even though it is an older discussion (2019), not much has changed in how this credit is applied over the years. Some of the older links do not work, or do not go directly to the source, but most will. For example, some links to particular sections of the Regulations do not work; note, however, most of the citations themselves are still valid . . . I cite and link Regulation 61 for example which defines what a "Canadian business" is for purposes of this credit, which is still a valid citation to the applicable regulation, but unfortunately the link goes to a different part of the immigration Regulations. Links to decisions in actual cases in the quote above still work, but there are many others in that thread/discussion which will not work by clicking on them, but again the citation is still good, and for most of the links that do not work, copying the url excluding "<" and ">" brackets, and pasting it into a browser, will still work.

Another quote from same thread, regarding the key factors:

. . . some IAD decisions [listing] the key factors considered in determining whether the working-abroad-employed-by-Canadian-business-credit is available [include] Janotta v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 41729 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hrzg5 and Ersoz v Canada (CIC), 2018 CanLII 30503 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hrg5n which list the factors to be considered as:

1. Is the Canadian business a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada, with majority ownership by Canadian citizens or permanent residents, with ongoing operations in Canada?​

2. Is the business an enterprise with an ongoing operation in Canada that is capable of generating revenue and is carried on in anticipation of profit?​

3. Is the appellant a full-time employee of the Canadian business or under contract to provide services to the Canadian business?​

4. A Canadian business does not include a business that serves primarily to allow a permanent resident to comply with their residency obligation while residing outside Canada.​

Without trying to restate what would amount to a very long chapter in a book about the PR RO (again, if you really want to explore this further, see the other discussions and, more importantly, the authoritative sources cited there), I will mention some of the relevant highlights regarding how this credit is analyzed and applied by IRCC, the IAD (which reviews IRCC RO compliance decisions), and the Federal Court (which in turn will review IAD decisions, if and when the case qualifies for judicial review):

Factors relevant to distinguishing an assignment to work outside Canada, which will qualify for the credit, versus what is likely to be seen as a position outside Canada or a business to facilitate getting RO credit while living outside Canada:

-- Generally, the PR needs to be living and working IN Canada before being given a temporary assignment to work outside Canada. This is not a technical requirement, and there has been at least one exception, a case I cite and link in one of those other discussions, but compared to most cases that one is an outlier and that outcome was based on some very particular factual circumstances.​

​

-- To be a Canadian business it needs to be about doing business IN Canada. The technical requirement is that it have an "ongoing operation in Canada," but how this is applied in practice generally excludes businesses that meet the formalities of what is a Canadian business generally (such as one incorporated under Canadian law) but which are mostly about doing business outside Canada. Small businesses, especially self-owned or family-run businesses, tend to be very closely scrutinized in this regard.​

​

-- Generally, personal and family businesses tend to not qualify, not because they are a personal or family business, but because most will be judged to not meet the particular qualifications, including as just mentioned, determining whether the business is sufficiently an ongoing operation in Canada, as well as in regards to what constitutes a temporary assignment as opposed to having a position outside Canada. (To unravel the nuts and bolts underlying this observation really demands reading through decisions in actual cases and seeing how the IAD or Federal Court applied the law and rules to particular factual situations.)​

 

[KuttyFernandez]

It will not work and there are no legitimate ways to make this work with your own company. They will look through the ownership and control.

.



Longer Explanation Toward Offering A Better Understanding . . .

Given the framing of your question in terms of wanting to better understand the exception pursuant to which a PR can get credit for time outside Canada, I will offer some information (not mere opinion) with reference to authoritative and reliable sources. However, this credit and how it works is subject to a lot of twists, turns, odd angles, tortuous technicalities, and otherwise complex elements, so rather than trying to repeat what I have previously discussed, I will mostly reference the older discussions in which I have addressed the credit, focusing on sources for this information.

So, for the particular details as to some of the sources, see the previous discussions I reference below, with links, where I go into depth about this exception and cite and link accounts of actual cases in official sources. (Link to respective discussions is the up-arrow next to forum member's username at the beginning of the quote.) See where I say:



That is quoted from just one post among many in that discussion in a thread I started to specifically review, in-depth and at-length, the working abroad RO credit exception. I cite and link many other sources, including governing statutory provisions, regulations, and other IRCC resources, in addition to relevant decisions in actual cases cited and linked in the quote above. Even though it is an older discussion (2019), not much has changed in how this credit is applied over the years. Some of the older links do not work, or do not go directly to the source, but most will. For example, some links to particular sections of the Regulations do not work; note, however, most of the citations themselves are still valid . . . I cite and link Regulation 61 for example which defines what a "Canadian business" is for purposes of this credit, which is still a valid citation to the applicable regulation, but unfortunately the link goes to a different part of the immigration Regulations. Links to decisions in actual cases in the quote above still work, but there are many others in that thread/discussion which will not work by clicking on them, but again the citation is still good, and for most of the links that do not work, copying the url excluding "<" and ">" brackets, and pasting it into a browser, will still work.

Another quote from same thread, regarding the key factors:



Without trying to restate what would amount to a very long chapter in a book about the PR RO (again, if you really want to explore this further, see the other discussions and, more importantly, the authoritative sources cited there), I will mention some of the relevant highlights regarding how this credit is analyzed and applied by IRCC, the IAD (which reviews IRCC RO compliance decisions), and the Federal Court (which in turn will review IAD decisions, if and when the case qualifies for judicial review):

Factors relevant to distinguishing an assignment to work outside Canada, which will qualify for the credit, versus what is likely to be seen as a position outside Canada or a business to facilitate getting RO credit while living outside Canada:

-- Generally, the PR needs to be living and working IN Canada before being given a temporary assignment to work outside Canada. This is not a technical requirement, and there has been at least one exception, a case I cite and link in one of those other discussions, but compared to most cases that one is an outlier and that outcome was based on some very particular factual circumstances.​

​

-- To be a Canadian business it needs to be about doing business IN Canada. The technical requirement is that it have an "ongoing operation in Canada," but how this is applied in practice generally excludes businesses that meet the formalities of what is a Canadian business generally (such as one incorporated under Canadian law) but which are mostly about doing business outside Canada. Small businesses, especially self-owned or family-run businesses, tend to be very closely scrutinized in this regard.​

​

-- Generally, personal and family businesses tend to not qualify, not because they are a personal or family business, but because most will be judged to not meet the particular qualifications, including as just mentioned, determining whether the business is sufficiently an ongoing operation in Canada, as well as in regards to what constitutes a temporary assignment as opposed to having a position outside Canada. (To unravel the nuts and bolts underlying this observation really demands reading through decisions in actual cases and seeing how the IAD or Federal Court applied the law and rules to particular factual situations.)​

Thanks for your detailed input. Really Appreciate it. I will look into the links and cases for better understanding.