A permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their RO?

[PermenantMont]

Experts, what does this mean?

• Accompanying outside Canada
  (4) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act and this section, a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident — 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 or the other permanent resident.
• Marginal note:Compliance
  (5) For the purposes of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their residency obligation.

 

[scylla]

Experts, what does this mean?

• Accompanying outside Canada
  (4) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act and this section, a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident — 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 or the other permanent resident.
• Marginal note:Compliance
  (5) For the purposes of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their residency obligation.

Don't double post.

 

[dpenabill]

A permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their RO?​

No. A PR does not comply with the RO as long as the PR they are accompanying complies with their RO.

It appears you may be misunderstanding how a PR may qualify for credit toward the RO while outside Canada based on accompanying their spouse who is a PR who in turn is BOTH in RO compliance AND meets the criteria qualifying for the working-abroad-for-a-Canadian-business credit toward RO (there is some tricky criteria to meet to qualify for this credit).

This is set out in subsection 28(2)(a)(iv) IRPA, which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274598

Experts, what does this mean?

• Accompanying outside Canada
  (4) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act and this section, a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident — 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 or the other permanent resident.
• Marginal note:Compliance
  (5) For the purposes of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their residency obligation.

Obviously what you quote is a partial quote. And given your subject, clearly out of context.

And it appears to be from an older, not so reliable source, given the reference to "each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with" the Canadian citizen or other PR, which is not how "accompanying" has been defined or calculated in scores of actual cases (as officially reported in IAD and Federal Court published decisions).

Where it says "For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act" that refers to two provisions in IRPA, which I link above.

Subsection 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA prescribes an exception to the RO pursuant to which a PR accompanying a Canadian CITIZEN outside Canada qualifies for RO credit.

Subsection 28(2)(a)(iv) IRPA, which I discuss above, prescribes an exception to the RO pursuant to which a PR accompanying a Canadian PR outside Canada qualifies for RO credit as long as:

(1) the PR they are accompanying is complying with the RO, and​

(2) the days that count, that get credit, must be days the PR they are accompanying is outside Canada that qualify for RO credit based on working-abroad-for-a-Canadian-business​

-- -- which, again, involves more than just being an employee for a business registered as a Canadian business -- see topic Working Abroad RO credit, including "business trips;" an update" here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...it-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/​

Note Re Counting Days Accompanying a Canadian citizen (or PR who qualifies for the WA4CB credit):

As noted above, the reference to "each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with" the Canadian citizen or other PR is NOT how "accompanying" is defined or calculated in many cases.

Apart from your source (always helps to cite and link sources), whatever that is, this language primarily comes from the Operational Manual ENF 23, which is a detailed guide to enforcement of the Residency Obligation. However, this has not been updated since 2015 and is in the process of being replaced by PDIs (Program Delivery Instructions). This language, about days ordinarily residing together, is NOT how accompanying is defined, described, or calculated in current PDIs.

However, in general and practical terms, for PRs who are clearly "accompanying" their spouse (for example), they do get credit for days they are ordinarily residing together. The tricky part, in some cases (which @Ponga alluded to in the other topic where you posted the quote), can be whether the PR is actually accompanying their spouse abroad or is with their spouse abroad in other circumstances. This too is discussed in this forum in some depth here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...ing-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

 

[dpenabill]

Correction/Clarification Re Counting Days PR is "ordinarily residing with" Canadian citizen:

. . . what does this mean?

• Accompanying outside Canada
  (4) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act and this section, a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident — 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 or the other permanent resident.
• Marginal note:Compliance
  (5) For the purposes of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their residency obligation.

. . . the reference to "each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with" the Canadian citizen or other PR is NOT how "accompanying" is defined or calculated in many cases.

. . . this language primarily comes from the Operational Manual ENF 23, which is a detailed guide to enforcement of the Residency Obligation. However, this has not been updated since 2015 and is in the process of being replaced by PDIs (Program Delivery Instructions). This language, about days ordinarily residing together, is NOT how accompanying is defined, described, or calculated in current PDIs.

Correction -- I was in error in that I overlooked that the language in ENF 23 derives from the applicable regulations, and thus correspondingly is addressed in numerous IAD decisions (and some, but few Federal Court decisions). Definitely would have helped, as I noted in my post, to know the source of what @PermenantMont was quoting.

Would have helped if I revisited the main thread where I have addressed the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit at length and in-depth, citing and linking scores of official sources . . . which again is here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...ing-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

The language quoted by @PermenantMont appears to be from the regulations adopted under IRPA. In particular, I now recognize the quote is from Section (Regulation) 61(4) and 61(5) IRPR (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) . . . and even if taken from some other source (many IAD decisions cite the Regulation verbatim), this is the precise language of these subsections in Regulation 61, numbering included. Which is here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-9.html#h-686425

Additionally, in revisiting the case history, it is apparent this Regulation is addressed more often than my post above suggests.

A big part of the difficulty in formulating a clear statement of how the credit is interpreted and applied is how widely variable the circumstances tend to be in actual cases.

Here is what is known:

*** As long as the PR is allowed the credit for days accompanying their Canadian citizen spouse, they will get credit for each day the PR is ordinarily residing with their spouse.​

-- -- if the couple were living together in Canada, and then moved abroad together, there is near zero risk of a problem getting the credit, and it does NOT matter why they moved outside Canada.​

​

*** If, however, IRCC concludes the PR was not "accompanying" their citizen spouse, typically the days ordinarily residing together outside Canada will not be given RO credit. If in the appeal the IAD agrees that the PR was not "accompanying" their citizen spouse, again no credit for days living together outside Canada. There are, however, some cases that allow credit for all days the PR is with the citizen spouse; that is, days together, let alone days residing together, get credit -- BUT this has only been in SOME cases, and in many of those cases the Minister argued against allowing the credit.​

​

*** The Big Question . . . as I have often discussed, the challenge this issue has always posed is how to identify if and when a who-accompanied-whom question might arise.​

-- -- NOTE: notwithstanding the extent to which the Minister for IRCC has argued who-accompanied-whom challenges before the IAD, it still appears that IRCC does not often or ordinarily challenge PRs claiming accompanying-citizen-spouse credit on this basis. . . ONLY challenging the credit in what seem to be blatantly and obviously egregious cases.​

I do not mean to rehash the extent to which "days ordinarily residing" together influence the outcome of cases in which this issue, this question, makes the difference . . . I have actually addressed the issue in depth, and again citing and linking, and discussing, the relevant decisions by the IAD and Federal Courts, and again that is here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...th-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/page-6