I go to work in the US on a daily basis and return home in Canada. When renewing the PR card, do I need to list all the work trips? As you can imagine this would be a loooong list for two years of travel. Anyone been in a similar situation?
I go to work in the US on a daily basis and return home in Canada. When renewing the PR card, do I need to list all the work trips? As you can imagine this would be a loooong list for two years of travel. Anyone been in a similar situation?
I know what you mean here but for clarity: any day when one spends time in Canada for any amount of time counts as a day in Canada.
That includes any day where one leaves Canada and returns the same day (which is what I presume the poster meant by saying 'work on a daily basis and return home in Canada.')
Just so that others don't get confused that 'days spent in the US count as days in Canada.' What matters is that some of the day is spent in Canada.
I go to work in the US on a daily basis and return home in Canada. When renewing the PR card, do I need to list all the work trips? As you can imagine this would be a loooong list for two years of travel. Anyone been in a similar situation?
I know what you mean here but for clarity: any day when one spends time in Canada for any amount of time counts as a day in Canada.
That includes any day where one leaves Canada and returns the same day (which is what I presume the poster meant by saying 'work on a daily basis and return home in Canada.')
Just so that others don't get confused that 'days spent in the US count as days in Canada.' What matters is that some of the day is spent in Canada.
I was quite clear that notwithstanding what the original text said about returning home, your response that "each of those days spent in the U.S. still counts as a full day in Canada", whether it says 'those' days or not, is insufficiently clear AND I WAS WRITING FOR ADDITIONAL CLARITY.
Someone reading your text without the context of the first WOULD misunderstand.
Or put differently: your text IS WRONG without additional clarity. Unambiguously so.
If you find this type of clarification upsetting, well, you're daft and should hide under a rock.
For clarity: note the "IF" formulation there. If you don't find it upsetting, then my statement makes no judgment as to whether or not you're daft nor your suggested disposition vis-a-vis rocks.
Oh...and I do like Daft Punk, if that matters. LOL!
One more important point (at least from my side of the screen) is that as mine was the second reply to the OP's post, there's really no way that anyone with an I.Q > 3.14... would have `misunderstood', nor is the text WRONG.
Had I waited until one, or more posts from others `hijacking' the OP's thread to reply WITHOUT [then] quoting the original post...I would be in agreement with you.
Since I did not...I do not.
