Re-entering Canada with a valid PR card but will n

I suppose a caveat is due.

Ordinarily, the revocation of status demands a more stringent standard with a significant benefit of doubt favoring the person with such status, than, for example, an application to acquire status. In other words, the burden an individual faces is higher when applying to obtain status, while in contrast the degree of proof necessary for CIC to take away status is in many respects higher.

One only needs to peruse the inadmissibility cases to see how this plays out; applicants for PR who are inadmissible face a very high hurdle and are rarely granted status even with relatively strong H&C grounds; but the cases involving PRs who have committed offences for which they are technically "inadmissible" tend to suggest that CIC does not even act to revoke PR status in many such cases and largely pursues the removal of PRs for inadmissibility mostly only in more egregious cases.

BUT when it comes to the residency requirement the policy itself recognizes that a great deal of flexibility is hard wired in the minimum requirement: just 730 days in five years, with allowances for PRs living abroad with Canadian citizen partners, as well as PRs working abroad for Canadian employers. So there is less leniency given what might be a so-called technical breach, that is, a breach based on less than 730 days total under any of the ways a PR can be acquiring days to be counted toward residency. It is recognized that the requirement itself is generous and highly flexible. So anyone falling short of the technical requirements really does need some persuasive evidence for the position that PR status should not be revoked.

So I hope my previous posts do not give the impression that a failure to meet the 730 minimum requirement will be routinely overlooked. Not at all. Any specific individual case really depends on the particular circumstances of the case . . . and again, for some good direction as to favorable factors that can be of assistance to people in the position of the OP here (film84), see pages 19 to 21 of ENF 23 (url given in posts above), recognizing that probably the biggest hurdle the OP here faces is that blatant three year plus absence, which does not allow any wiggle room whatsoever relative to the breach itself.