@IndianBos bascially covered it.
For clarification in consideration of the observation by
@Bs65 ("
given above cannot see any leniency to the residency obligation"):
It should be fair to anticipate there will be some leniency in enforcement of the residency obligation due to conditions and travel restrictions related to covid-19 and pandemic response measures. But the nature and scope of leeway allowed will most likely be individual case specific, with considerations such as those referenced by
@IndianBos and alluded to by
@jddd.
At best, however, the most leeway a PR probably can reasonably hope for, would be a one-for-one neutralizing offset based on how many more days the PR remained abroad due to such conditions and travel restrictions. No leeway is guaranteed.
Remember, the biggest factor in the vast majority of requests for H&C relief for a RO-breach is the extent to which the PR falls short of meeting the RO. The bigger that number (the more days in breach), the lower the odds the PR will be allowed to keep status based on H&C reasons (subject to consideration of all H&C related factors).
So, to the extent leeway is allowed based on covid-19 related matters, the best the PR can reasonably anticipate is that the number of days abroad that covid-19, in effect, is blamed for the PR's continuing to be abroad, MIGHT be subtracted from the total number of days in breach.
Thus, the PR whose breach of the RO is bigger than the total number of days covid-19 can be said to have restricted the PR's travel back to Canada, is likely to be at far greater risk than a PR whose breach of the RO is a number of days less than the PR can reasonably blame on covid-19 related factors.
Example: for a PR now in breach of the RO arriving at a PoE tomorrow, or applying for a PR Travel Document tomorrow, if the extent of the breach is LESS than 8 months, the odds of leeway probably range from good to very good . . . BUT nonetheless subject to other considerations (someone who has been a PR for many years and who still does not have well established residential ties in Canada may not enjoy such leniency).
Travel restrictions imposed by government versus reasonably delaying travel due to covid-19 conditions:
Obviously, formal or official travel restrictions make a stronger case for an offset, for the days abroad caused by those restrictions to be considered a neutral factor. But that evokes consideration for who is actually subject to the restrictions, as the post by
@jddd details.
It is impossible to forecast how CBSA officials (conducting PoE examinations) or IRCC Visa Office officials (deciding PR TD applications) will weigh the impact of covid-19 conditions relative to decisions to further delay returning to Canada in the specific case. Individual circumstances will undoubtedly vary widely, with much variability in how they impact an individual's personal travel and how they relate to the overall circumstances of the PR's failure to comply with the RO. Blanket relief seems very unlikely. Substantial relief in many if not most cases, in contrast, seems likely SO LONG AS the extent of the breach is not a lot longer than what can be reasonably attributed to covid-19 related factors. But that leaves a huge range in-between.
Overall the same admonition generally applicable still applies now: the sooner the PR makes the effort to return to Canada, the better the PR's odds of keeping status despite a breach of the RO. No guarantees. Remember, once the PR has failed to meet the RO, AS a MATTER of LAW the PR is inadmissible. And given how lenient the RO is overall, obtaining relief for failing to comply does NOT come easily or readily.
