Observations by others have largely covered, well-covered, the various factors and considerations involved in regards to your individual situation, and to a significant extent the situation confronted by others as well. For any PR who has difficulty complying with the PR Residency Obligation (the 2/5 years IN Canada requirement), each case is very much dependent on the particular facts and circumstances in that individual's own situation. Whether H&C relief is available, for a failure to comply with the RO, is definitely personal. What to do if a PR's circumstances make it prohibitively difficult to meet the RO and keep PR status, is likewise definitely personal. Relevant decisions are for the PR to make, themselves, personally. Others have addressed this. But, yes, for sure,
this can mean having to make some tough decisions.
@armoured did a good job addressing the broader elements, as to the rules, and the policies and practices employed in applying the rules, doing so from the
what-the-rules-should-be and
how-to-effect-change perspective. That's not my forte.
Beyond that, I am tempted to offer some deeper esoteric exposition . . . the long read, an explanation of the undercurrent . . . wandering into jurisprudence and rather weedy, if not muddy zones. I will make an effort to avoid going too deep.
But it might help put things into better focus to clarify the difference between IRCC implementing a broad practice to extend temporary resident status, such as was done for Foreign Nationals (FNs, not Canadians) in Canada on a PGWP, and how the PR Residency Obligation rules work and what relief is available for PRs (Canadians with Permanent Resident status) who cannot comply with the RO.
PGWP and PR RO Distinguished:
Comparing PGWP and the PR RO is like comparing apples to ping pong balls, or a drivers' license to the speed limit.
An allegory: During the peak of the pandemic the registration for my car expired, but just as it was for scores and scores of others, it was automatically extended (for a rather long while). If, however, I had let my insurance lapse (I did not), that would have invalidated the vehicle's registration -- the covid based extension would not save me.
Comparing PGWP and the PR RO in particular: one is an immigration status, a form of Temporary Resident status; the other is a rule those with PR status need to follow.
IRCC did not change the rules when it extended PGWPs. It extended the duration of permits granting temporary resident status. IRCC has a lot of discretion applying immigration law and regulations in making decisions about how long FNs are given temporary resident status in Canada. Including PGWPs. A broadly implemented practice of extending the PGWP is well within the scope of IRCC's authority.
IRCC has NO discretion to modify or suspend the RO, which is specifically prescribed by law, by statute, and can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.
However, the effect of breaching the RO is not absolute. H&C relief is allowed in some cases. By its nature, whether H&C relief is appropriate depends very much on the INDIVIDUAL case, on the particular facts and circumstances in the specific PR's situation. There are many factors to consider, but the two biggest ones are the extent of the RO breach (just the numbers -- days in Canada versus days outside), and the reasons why the PR was abroad so long, and these tend to dominate the assessment of H&C factors unless the loss of PR status will have a negative impact on Canadian children (either PRs or citizens), which when involved can override other factors (caution, however, how this works in particular cases can be tricky).
The impact of Covid-19 and the pandemic is a factor.
Of course. Obviously. It has been a significant reason underlying the reasons why some PRs remained abroad so long. I have cited and linked (and elsewhere discussed) various IAD decisions illustrating this. Including:
Some forum participants have more or less suggested that Covid is a factor only to the extent there was an actual travel ban preventing the PR from returning to Canada. That flies in the face of and is contrary to how H&C factors are considered generally. Circumstances that fall way short of totally preventing travel to Canada are routinely given significant positive weight in the H&C assessment. And this is confirmed in Gongsriwatanapon, 2023 CanLII 12680
https://canlii.ca/t/jvr2d where the IAD stated:
Regardless of the lifting of travel bans at various stages throughout the pandemic the Appellant did not feel comfortable travelling back to Canada until his application [for a PR TD] in 2022. I accept this explanation and find that this more recent delay was reasonable.
Unfortunately for Charnchai Gongsriwatanapon, however, other factors in balance weighed against allowing relief and he lost PR status. In concluding there were not enough H&C factors in his favour, the IAD stated:
This is mainly because the residency failure is a result of personal choices. The Appellant chose not to live in Canada but to reside and stay established in Thailand instead.
To illustrate how widely variable the outcome can be, and the extent to which the outcome depends on the whole situation in the individual PR's case, in the Gongsriwatanapon
https://canlii.ca/t/jvr2d case he had spent
441 days in Canada, and more than half of the time he was outside Canada was during a period of time the IAD found his remaining abroad due to covid was "
reasonable." Lost PR status. In contrast, in the Messaoudi
https://canlii.ca/t/jhv21 case Mr. Messaoudi only spent
174 days in Canada, but was allowed to keep PR status, covid factoring into the positive decision in a couple ways but there were other positive factors which made the biggest difference.
Summary:
The RO itself is fixed, by law. Parliament is unlikely to change the law to make it more lenient. As has been noted, the RO is considered very generous as it is (albeit it warrants saying that comments describing it as "
ridiculously" so, or as a "
farce," are themselves ridiculous and perhaps betray anti-immigrant bigotry, unfortunately).
The manner in which the RO is applied and enforced, in contrast, allows for wide discretion in allowing relief in individual cases where there is good cause for allowing the PR to retain PR status. Broad discretion inherently results in some disparities in outcome, which is prone to incidents of injustice, even abuse. But on top of how lenient the RO itself is, it appears that any imbalance in how H&C relief is allowed tends to favour not disadvantage PRs. With some exceptions.
Meanwhile, as much as some of us might embrace the idealism of open borders (including those of us with a Marx/Lenin/Trotsky bend), per the governing law the grant of PR status in Canada is specifically to enable FNs to come to Canada to settle and live PERMANENTLY, so it is not likely the law will be changed to better accommodate those for whom their circumstances do not facilitate doing so, recognizing that under the current law a PR can remain outside Canada MOST of the time and keep their Canadian PR status.