16. A PR's application for a PRTD was refused for failure to comply with the residency obligation. The PR approaches an RCIC to appeal the decision after the appeal deadline has expired. The RCIC files a Notice of Appeal along with an application for an extension of time. The PR has challenged the legal validity of the decision because they were working abroad for a Canadian company. What should the RCIC demonstrate to support the challenge?
Answer: B
The PR is a full-time employee of the company.
To support the challenge against the decision refusing the PRTD, the RCIC must demonstrate that the PR is a full-time employee of the Canadian company. This employment status is critical in establishing that the PR was fulfilling their residency obligations while working abroad.
A) The PR is a majority shareholder of the company.
While being a majority shareholder may indicate a significant connection to the company, it does not inherently satisfy the residency obligation requirements. This option fails to directly demonstrate that the PR was working full-time, which is essential for the challenge.
B) The PR is a full-time employee of the company.
This option is correct because it directly addresses the necessity of proving that the PR was engaged in full-time employment with a Canadian company while abroad. This status is relevant to the residency obligation, as it supports the argument that the PR maintained ties to Canada through their employment.
C) The PR has filed their Canadian tax returns every year.
Filing tax returns demonstrates a financial connection to Canada but does not specifically show that the PR was fulfilling the residency obligation through employment. This option is insufficient on its own to support the challenge against the decision.
D) The PR is a contractor for the company outside Canada.
Being a contractor may suggest a working relationship with the company; however, it does not establish full-time employment status. This distinction is important, as the residency obligation is typically tied to full-time work, making this option inadequate for the challenge.
Conclusion
The correct answer, that the PR is a full-time employee of the company, effectively supports the challenge against the refusal of the PRTD by demonstrating compliance with residency obligations. The other options fail to establish the necessary employment status or relevance to the legal argument required for a successful appeal. Thus, only Option B provides the essential information to substantiate the appeal.