Possibly not, because the rule asks for one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the three years before the petition, and a long unpaid interruption can break continuity. Total years of service do not cure it; what matters is whether an unbroken qualifying year sits inside that three-year window.
Continuity is measured, not estimated
Work backwards from the intended filing date and mark the three-year window on a calendar, then plot every period of employment, leave, secondment and layoff inside it. Hypothetical example: the executive who runs a Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover powder-coating line has nine years with the company, but she took eight months of unpaid personal leave that ended fourteen months ago, leaving only fourteen continuous months since her return — which is enough, provided the payroll records show it clearly and the leave is explained rather than hidden. Where the arithmetic does not work, there are usually two honest responses: wait until a full continuous year has accrued inside the window, or examine whether a different classification fits the same move.
What does not help is presenting cumulative service and hoping the gap is not noticed, because payroll evidence is precisely what the petition must include. Note also that the qualifying year must be with the related foreign entity itself; work performed for a client, or invoiced through your own management corporation, invites a dispute about whether you were that company’s employee at all.