Overall, No Need to Worry:
Generally, the anecdotal reporting suggests that a PR who has spent more than a year IN Canada, including most of the previous year in Canada, who has been outside Canada this trip for a relatively short period (not much more than a couple or three months), and who is presenting their first PR card that is still valid for nearly another year, has good to very good odds they will not be subject to Inadmissibility proceedings upon arrival. There is some risk. The specific facts and circumstances in the individual PR's case will have significant influence in how it goes. A PR who has a home in Canada which they are clearly returning to with the intention of staying here probably has significantly better odds.
So there may be little or almost no reason to worry. Otherwise, worrying is of no use anyway. If allowed to enter Canada without being issued a Removal Order, she is good to stay, no problem. It would then be best to avoid travel abroad again for the next year plus some.
If, in contrast, she is subject to Inadmissibility proceedings resulting in the issuance of a Removal Order, she will still be allowed to enter Canada and can then appeal, and if as a family you are settled here and staying, her chances in the appeal should be very good. Moreover, worst case scenario is you could sponsor her PR again. Not likely to come to that (as long as you are, as a family, actually settled here now), but that's a rather strong safety net just in case things go wrong.
Mostly she should just be prepared to explain, in general terms, the effort and plan and some highlight-details regarding her and her family's settlement in Canada, so far and for the future. That is, just be prepared to tell her and your story, in simple terms. And NOT panic if it does not go so well. Not panic if a Removal Order is issued.
That said, being accompanied by children who are not Canadians (remember, as a PR your spouse is a Canadian), could complicate things . . . very difficult to forecast how this will impact things. By the way, in this regard, last I knew (but it has been awhile) a Visitor's Record for U.S. citizens terminates either as of the date it expires or when the individual leaves Canada. So the children's VRs are probably (again, not certain since it has been awhile since I looked at this in particular) no longer valid, given their departure from Canada. I am NOT suggesting this will cause a problem. Assuming the sponsored PR application is already in process, and as long as the parents understand the children must leave Canada if their applications for PR or other status are denied (that is, recognizing what many refer to as "
dual intent," that is an intent to stay as evidenced by application for permanent resident status, but also an intent to NOT stay if that status is denied), there will typically not be a problem with the children being authorized to enter Canada as visitors, with or without newly issued Visitor Records.
Some Further Observations:
I am not sure what you mean by "
informing," but it readily appears your question, your concern, is in regards to whether she will be subject to Inadmissibility proceedings upon her arrival here, and whether it makes a difference if she arrives by air or at a land-border-crossing. As
@steaky said, rather cryptically and uninformatively, the chances are the same . . . I would qualify that by saying they are
roughly the same, overall, but on any given day the odds could be better or worse at one or the other, with no way to forecast how it will go.
As I have noted, being accompanied by the children complicates things. If arriving at Pearson in Toronto by air, traveling alone there would be good odds she could use the kiosk and not be referred for Secondary immigration screening.
While being accompanied by children who are not Canadians increases the likelihood of additional screening and referral for a Secondary immigration examination, I cannot guess, not even a ballpark guess, to what extent this will increase the level of scrutiny she encounters at the Port-of-Entry (PoE), be that either at a land-border-crossing or in an airport. In particular, it is virtually impossible to forecast if this will trigger questions about her compliance with the Residency Obligation.
Note that there are two distinct levels of risk.
The first level of risk is whether she is even questioned about RO compliance. There are many factors which influence how this goes. As already noted, being accompanied by non-Canadian children probably increases the risk. But if she has been living in Canada most of the last year or so, and is presenting a PR card valid for nearly another year, that suggests at least a fair chance she will be allowed to proceed into Canada without being closely questioned about RO compliance.
But there is a risk she will be questioned about RO compliance, raising the second level of risk. Since she is in breach of the RO, meeting the definition of "
inadmissible," that raises the second level of risk, the risk she will be subject to inadmissibility proceedings. Here too there are many factors which could have a lot of influence in how this goes, including the extent of her more recent stay in Canada, for example, and just how recent that was. No need to panic if this happens. I addressed this above.
A Procedural Clarification . . .
in regards to the actual question posed:
"What are the chances of Toronto cbsa agents informing about her to IRCC about her not meeting RO if she lands directly in Toronto?"
As I noted, I am not sure what you mean by "
informing." If there is a referral to Secondary and questions about her compliance with the Residency Obligation, at the least the officers at the PoE will make notations to her GCMS records, memorializing the transaction and some details. Both CBSA and IRCC have concurrent access to IRCC client GCMS. Ordinarily neither will
initiate Inadmissibility/Removal proceedings based on entries in GCMS, but both will consider entries in GCMS if there is something that does trigger, that is
initiate Inadmissibility/Removal proceedings.
If CBSA officers at the PoE determine the PR is in breach of the RO, that does NOT result in CBSA "
informing" IRCC, or as some refer to it, "
reporting" the PR to IRCC. Rather, CBSA officers proceed to adjudicate the PR's status, and if the result of the Residency Determination, which is conducted by CBSA officers, is that there is a breach of the RO, that results in a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report and another CBSA officer will proceed to conduct a review of that, and decide whether to issue a Removal Order. If no Removal Order is issued (typically based on sufficient H&C factors to allow relief despite the breach), that's the end of that procedure. If a Removal Order is issued, the PR is allowed to enter Canada but their PR status will terminate if and when that order takes effect; to avoid the Removal Order taking effect, the PR must appeal. The appeal does NOT go to IRCC but rather to the IAD.
