Here's what we do know: they have to consider h and c reasons, including covid. But we cannot say whether that would be sufficient for someone coming back in mid 2021. (That will depend on how covid continues to develop)
The post by
@armoured (more quoted below) largely covers it.
In addition to "
how covid continues to develop" there will many other factors which influence how it goes, most specific to the individual. Extent of breach is probably the single biggest factor.
And another thing we do know is that someone who cuts it close - returning just before the RO is out of compliance or who returns out of compliance and gets H&C consideration - that person can face faces real restrictions or delays on travel, renewing documents, sponsoring family members, etc. And the person who cuts it close faces a higher risk of something not going to plan, with serious consequences.
Does that decide it for this person or anyone else? No. Only they can decide.
But the less one cuts it close, the better. And if you do cut it close or risk it with H&C, you accept the consequences.
REMINDER: The 2/5 rule is NOT intended to facilitate part-time living in Canada, even though PRs can, and more than a few do, manage to take advantage of it in this way. There seems to be a tendency to misunderstand the RO and, in particular, underestimate the importance of the purpose for a grant of PR status: so the individual can SETTLE and LIVE PERMANENTLY in CANADA.
At the end of the day, Canada legally allows PR's to spend up to 1095 days living and working outside of the country in any one five year period. You're right in that is quite a lenient requirement, especially compared with the US, however this year should be a special case.
Right now the Canadian government is advising against all non-essential travel to the country and imposing strict and previously unthinkable restrictions on people upon their arrival. The country is also slowly coming out of a period of extreme economic turmoil. IMHO, I don't think anybody should have an absence in 2020 held against them on their RO record.
Let's be clear: yes, as long as a PR spends at least 730 days IN Canada within any and every five year period (as of the fifth year anniversary of landing), yes, that complies with the Residency Obligation.
And, moreover, if a PR fails to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, before PR status can be officially terminated a Minister's Delegate MUST consider ANY and ALL explanations the PR offers as to why the PR failed to comply, and determine whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO. That is, H&C relief MUST be considered.
BUT the 2/5 RO is
NOT intended to facilitate PRs spending "
up to 1095 days living and working outside of the country in any one five year period." Make NO mistake, and there are scores of IAD and Federal Court decisions OFFICIALLY stating this (that is, this is not an opinion let alone my opinion):
the purpose for giving individuals Permanent Resident status is so they can PERMANENTLY SETTLE IN CANADA.
Many of those same decisions emphasize that the 2/5 RO is to allow PRs the flexibility to deal with real life demands and contingencies that might compel them to go abroad for extended periods of time. A PR is allowed to be absent from Canada for an extended period of time, for example, to settle affairs and make the initial move to Canada. To return home to attend to a gravely ill parent and settle affairs after a parent's death. Among the many other real life situations which might compel a person to spend a long time (up to three years even) in a country other than the country in which they are PERMANENTLY SETTLED. That is, if and when there is a situation compelling a PR to go abroad to attend to a special situation, PRs can do this with NO WORRY about keeping their PR status SO LONG AS they return to Canada in time to avoid being absent for more than 1095 days within the preceding five years (or since landing for new PRs).
Which brings the discussion around to the observation by
@armoured about
cutting-it-close . . . and more to the point . . . bearing the RISK of
cutting-it-close.
It is not yet known to what extent the impact of Covid-19 will be a reason for allowing H&C relief. We have not seen any official cases or anecdotal reports of actual decision-making in RO H&C cases in which the impact of Covid-19 has been a factor. It must be considered, if offered as an explanation by the PR in breach of the RO. But how much positive weight it will have is nearly impossible to forecast.
That said, there are other factors which we have seen discussed at length and in-depth, in scores of OFFICIALLY reported actual cases (in IAD and Federal Court decisions) and it is clear the key factors will continue to have a lot of influence in how things go for any particular individual PR.
I just a bit ago posted some lengthy observations about the impact of covid-19 generally, referencing some key factors; see post linked in the following quote:
Impact of Covid-19 (generally):
And I also posted some lengthy observations about the impact of covid-19 in individual cases; see post linked in the following quote:
Impact of Covid-19 (in individual cases):
Those observations are based in large part on what we have learned from dozens of IAD decisions, numerous Federal Court decisions, the precise statutes and regulations, with due consideration given to anecdotal reports over the course of the last decade or so.
Those particular observations were largely about the situation for a soft-landing PR who was still abroad when Covid-19 travel restrictions began to be implemented this year. As I suggest there, DEPENDING on other factors, it is relatively easy to predict that soft-landing PRs whose trips to settle in Canada are delayed due to Covid-19 are likely to be allowed at least *some* additional leeway in addition to what they typically are allowed. SOME. It is highly unlikely there will be a free pass.
That said, as an aside I also included a brief observation for those who have been a PR for more than five years:
. . . for those who have been a PR for more than five years, my sense is that delays returning to Canada due to Covid-19 will have marginal benefit. Depending on particular circumstances, as ALWAYS, of course. But unless it appears the PR was already WELL-SETTLED in Canada and there was a compelling reason to go abroad and remain abroad, apart from the delay returning to Canada due to Covid-19, my sense is these PRs are not likely to be given anywhere near the leeway soft-landing PRs might be allowed. Reasons why should be obvious.
For such PRs, in addition to what tends to be the biggest factor in almost all RO H&C cases, that is the extent of the breach, the nature and extent of their ties in Canada, including in particular the extent to which they have been well-settled and living permanently in Canada, will likely loom large. It is possible that CBSA and IRCC will give most returning PRs something akin to a credit for much of this year, but frankly that seems less than likely if not quite unlikely.
In particular, it seems a fairly good guess that those PRs who have a history of just barely meeting the PR RO are not likely to be given a lot of additional leeway based on the impact of Covid-19. Their best bet will be to make the trip to Canada almost as soon as possible once formal travel restrictions no longer preclude the trip.
And the following is a noteworthy observation as well:
I remember our PM giving a speech at the start of the pandemic when he said it was time for Canadians to come home, and he repeated that. The current advice is against leaving Canada not against coming back. So, someone's decision to stay outside Canada is not backed up by any governmental policy consideration, but a personal choice.
