Welcome to your ICCRC Full Skills Exam Prep Lesson on Residency Requirements!

Estimated Study Time = 4 hours

ENF 23: Loss of Permanent Resident Status


OP 10: Permanent Residency Status Determination


IRPA A2, A27, A28, A31, A41, A44, A46, A63, A175

IRPR R53-62, R328

IRCC Help Centre: Residency Requirements


Calculating residence/physical presence for certain family members of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living abroad



Residency Requirements in the news:

Couple in Nova Scotia hopes for last-minute reprieve from ‘devastating’ deportation


Here are some great cases to read that will help you see A28 in action!

Kahlon v. Canada will give you a better understanding of being employed by a Canadian business outside of Canada as per A61(3)

Yari v. Canada is a fairly straightforward case that shows a person who was granted refugee protection in Canada and did not stay for the required 730 days in order to maintain status as a permanent resident. One great aspect about this case is that it gives you some insight into the correspondence sent to the applicant and timelines that happen in a real setting.

Jian v. Canada is an example of a failed appeal because, while the company Mr. Jian was working for was Canadian, Mr. Jian did not have sufficient ties to the Canadian branch in order to meet the requirements of A61(3). ‘To have time spent outside of Canada count toward the residency requirement, the permanent resident must be assigned temporarily, must maintain a connection with his employer, and must return to work for it in Canada following the assignment.’ [6]

Chaar v. Canada gives us a great look at ‘compelling factors’ that may be used to justify lengthy absences from Canada.

Wu v. Canada will help you to understand the procedures of Judicial Review when an Appeal is denied. This also gives you some insight into what is used to prove employment by a Canadian company while overseas.

Osba v. Canada is an example of a case where the permanent resident was working only part-time for a Canadian company overseas which led to him not meeting his residency requirements as he needed to work full-time. The decision was overturned because the officer misinterpreted R61, which refers to an exception for employees working for the client of a Canadian company.


error: Alert: Content is protected !!