SHORT ANSWER:
Yes, days you are in fact living abroad, living
together, with a Canadian citizen spouse, are credited as days present in Canada for the purpose of calculating compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. Living with a Canadian citizen child abroad has NO relevance. (A child PR, in contrast, gets the credit for days "ordinarily residing with" a Canadian citizen parent.)
The general rule implements Regulation 61(4) in the
IRPA Regulations
see
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-12.html#h-31
Regulation 61(4) in the
IRPA Regulations states (in pertinent part):
"
For the purposes of [the provisions prescribing the credit for accompanying a citizen], a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen . . . — who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent — on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen . . ."
It is true there are some nuances, but it is highly
unlikely they are relevant in your situation.
Clarifying Possible But Unusual Exceptions:
Some clarification is warranted given this:
In general, why the PR left Canada is NOT relevant. Thus, for example, it does not matter if it was the PR who obtained employment abroad leading the couple to move abroad for the PR's employment. Credit still applies. In general, there is no inquiry into who accompanied whom, so long as the couple are residing together abroad.
There have been some exceptions to this. These are isolated, unusual cases.
Thank you,
zardoz , for the link (I would not have recalled that analysis otherwise) to some discussion and analysis which includes a couple lengthy posts by me containing an in-depth analysis taking into account some of those unusual cases in which who accompanied whom was a deciding factor.
To be clear: Generally it does NOT matter WHY the couple is abroad, so long as the couple is in fact living together.
As I quoted in the linked posts, ENF 23 Section 7.5 states (in pertinent part):
"
In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met."
As I noted above, this general rule in large follows the applicable regulation, which is Regulation 61(4) in the
IRPA Regulations (again, see
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-12.html#h-31 )
But, as I discuss in the linked posts, there are exceptions, there are circumstances in which
some Visa Officers and IAD Panels have focused on who accompanied whom, and based a negative decision on a determination that the Canadian citizen was abroad only to accompanying a PR who was, more or less, "
well ensconced in the foreign jurisdiction," and the citizen effectively goes to that foreign jurisdiction to live with the PR. Moreover, these isolated, unusual cases also appear to involve individuals who are clearly or blatantly abusing the Canadian immigration system. It appears these cases involve PRs who have never really established any presence in Canada.
There is much more analysis and discussion in the linked posts. I have not updated my research about this issue since last spring but I have not seen any Federal Court decisions relevant to this in the interim (in addition to citizenship cases, I read almost every Federal Court decision which comes out involving PR RO issues), and there is no reason to anticipate any significant changes in how this credit is approached by CBSA or IRCC.
