Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
In her Globe and Mail commentary, Parisa Mahboubi critiques the federal government’s newly announced target to reduce Canada’s temporary resident population from 7.4% to 5% of the total population. She argues that while the intention may be politically motivated or aimed at easing public concerns about housing and service pressures, the target is fundamentally unachievable with the current administrative and institutional capacity. The government lacks the tools to effectively scale back temporary admissions or enforce timely departures, making the target largely symbolic.
Mahboubi situates this goal within a broader trend of the federal government announcing ambitious but unrealistic targets, whether related to immigration, housing, or climate change, that often exceed the implementation capacity of Canada’s institutions. She notes that while such announcements may generate favourable headlines, they frequently fail to result in meaningful outcomes due to poor planning, insufficient resources, and a lack of operational detail.
The piece concludes by emphasizing that Canada should shift away from high-level political rhetoric and instead develop tailored, practical policies. These should include improvements to visa processing, exit tracking mechanisms, and more effective program controls. Without such measures, the announced reduction in temporary residents risks becoming another unmet commitment, further eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to manage immigration and population growth effectively. (Source)
Ontario universities are warning that they are rapidly running out of space for domestic students, with projections indicating a need for 80,000 additional spots over the next five years. The crisis stems from a significant mismatch between growing student demand and limited institutional capacity, particularly as the province’s tuition freeze and restricted funding have strained university budgets.
While universities have increasingly relied on international student tuition to offset these financial pressures, this strategy does not resolve the need for infrastructure expansion and support for domestic enrolment. Despite recent provincial measures, such as Bill 33, university leaders argue that current policies fall short of addressing the scale of the problem. Without targeted investments to expand capacity and support domestic students, many Ontario residents may soon find it increasingly difficult to access post-secondary education within the province. (Source)
Canada’s total study permit approvals for 2025 are projected to be around 420,000, nearly reaching the federal cap of 437,000 permits. However, just 163,000 of these are expected to be new permits granted to students applying from abroad, roughly half the number issued in 2024 and about 30% of the 2023 total. The remaining permits are going to international students already in Canada, who are extending their studies or changing programs. Immigration experts and education platforms warn that while this shift helps meet numeric caps, it signals a significant drop in new enrolments, likely leading to a decline in fresh international student enrolment over the next three years.
In essence, Canada is granting more renewals than new study permits in 2025, effectively reducing the inflow of fresh international students—a trend some fear could weaken the post-secondary sector’s sustainability if it continues. (Source)
The Government of Canada has reinforced and updated its annual wage review requirement for employers participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). Originally introduced on January 1, 2024, and reaffirmed through a June 27, 2025 alert, these measures are designed to ensure that foreign workers are paid wages consistent with current labour market conditions.
Under these rules, employers with Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)-based work permits must annually review and adjust wages to reflect the most recent median wage rates published on Job Bank (or the Quebec-specific MIFI tool). This review must be completed by January 1st of each year using the wage data available as of that date. If the prevailing wage has increased, the employer must raise the worker’s wage accordingly. However, wages can never be reduced, even if the market median decreases.
This requirement applies to all LMIA-based streams, including both high-wage and low-wage positions. It does not apply to individuals holding work permits under LMIA-exempt streams (e.g., open work permits or International Mobility Program).
The June 2025 bulletin specifically reminds employers that 2025 median wage rates must be used in the upcoming annual review cycle and confirms that these rates are now available on Job Bank. The bulletin serves as a compliance reminder and guidance update.
While employers are not required to notify Service Canada of wage increases made to meet prevailing wage standards, they must contact authorities or apply for a new LMIA if wage adjustments fall below LMIA-approved levels.
These wage review measures ensure that temporary foreign workers are fairly compensated in line with evolving economic realities. They also promote transparency and strengthen employer accountability under the TFWP. Failure to comply can result in penalties or loss of program access.
To obtain a study permit in Canada, international students must show they have sufficient financial resources to support themselves and any accompanying family members. This includes covering tuition fees, living expenses, and return transportation, all without relying on income from work in Canada. Acceptable forms of proof include recent bank statements, paid tuition receipts, a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC), confirmation of a student loan or scholarship, or a letter of financial support from a sponsor.
As of September 1, 2025, the minimum required funds (excluding tuition) for a single applicant are CAD 22,895, with additional amounts required for each accompanying family member. Until that date, the minimum is CAD 20,635. Students planning to study in Québec must meet different financial thresholds set by the provincial government (MIFI). These requirements are in place to ensure that students can live and study in Canada without facing financial hardship.
International students applying for a Post‑Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) in Canada must now meet updated field of study requirements if they submitted their study permit on or after November 1, 2024, or apply for a PGWP on or after that date. The rules exempt those who (a) applied before November 1, 2024, regardless of program, (b) graduated from an eligible flight school, or (c) completed a bachelor’s degree, master’s, or doctoral program. Otherwise, applicants must graduate from a program whose Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code appears on the government’s current list of eligible fields, which is updated regularly to reflect labour market shortages.
On June 25, 2025, IRCC announced significant updates to this CIP eligibility list, expanding it to include 119 new in‑demand fields in sectors like health care, education, and trades, while removing 178 fields no longer aligned with long‑term labour shortages—raising the total to approximately 920 eligible programs. Students whose study permit applications were submitted before June 25, 2025, remain eligible for a PGWP as long as their CIP code was listed at the time of their study permit submission—even if it is removed later. These updates aim to align post‑graduation work rights with Canada’s Express Entry priorities and the dynamic needs of the labour market.
The Government of Canada has extended its temporary public policy under the Canada–Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET), enabling Ukrainian nationals and their eligible family members who arrived in Canada on or before March 31, 2024, to apply in Canada for open work permits or study permits, even if their prior status did not meet those permit requirements. These applications must be submitted between April 1, 2025, and March 31, 2026, and applicants must maintain valid temporary resident status at the time of application.
Under the policy, IRCC may grant exemptions from several immigration regulation requirements—such as needing a pre-arrival permit for study or work—meaning eligible Ukrainians can apply from within Canada without meeting usual pre-entry conditions. While the exemptions ease procedural barriers, applicants remain subject to all other admissibility criteria. The expanded measures reflect Canada’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukrainian individuals and families displaced by the conflict, reinforcing access to education and employment through March 31, 2026.
The Government of Canada has issued an operational bulletin updating procedures for issuing travel documents and citizenship grants to individuals adopted by Canadian citizens. Under these new guidelines, adopted persons are now eligible to receive Canadian passports and travel documents before they formalize their citizenship status, provided they are in the process of being granted citizenship through adoption. This interim measure ensures that adopted children can travel internationally with valid Canadian documentation while their citizenship application is finalized.
Furthermore, the policy clarifies that citizenship certificates for adopted persons must include details such as the date of adoption, to ensure legal clarity and accurate tracking of nationality status. The updates also streamline internal processes for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) caseworkers, detailing how to issue birth certificates, passports, and citizenship documents in seamless sequence once adoption is recognized, eliminating administrative delays.
Taken together, these changes make it easier for adopted children to access essential services and travel in alignment with their new families, reducing uncertainty during the post-adoption period.
As of July 4, 2025, the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP) has temporarily paused intake of new Employer Services applications. This pause is in effect to allow the program to manage its caseload and update internal processes. The intake of new applications is expected to reopen on August 5, 2025.
If you are an employer or candidate planning to use this pathway, please hold off on submitting new applications until the program reopens. For any questions or concerns during this pause, MPNP recommends checking their official website or contacting their support team for updates.
As of July 2, 2025, Ontario has implemented several key changes to its Provincial Nominee Program to better align with employer-driven hiring and address labour-market needs:
Why This Matters
These updates shift Ontario’s PNP to a more employer-driven, efficient, and integrity-focused model. By putting employers in the driver’s seat to register roles, requiring interviews, and enabling application returns, the province aims to fast-track high-quality candidates who meet real labour-market demands. The lighter requirements for early childhood educators further target critical shortages and encourage skilled professionals to settle in Ontario.
In response to the devastating wildfires that have impacted communities across the country, the Government of Canada has announced a series of temporary immigration and documentation support measures to assist those affected. Effective immediately and lasting until November 30, 2025, these measures are designed to ease the administrative burden on Canadians, permanent residents, and foreign nationals directly impacted by the 2025 wildfire season.
Key supports include waivers of application fees for the replacement of lost, damaged, or destroyed documents such as immigration status papers, health cards, and driver’s licences. Canadians and permanent residents who have lost these vital documents due to wildfires can apply for replacements without cost. Additionally, the government has extended support to foreign emergency personnel who were deployed to Canada to assist with firefighting and disaster relief efforts. As of June 11, 2025, these individuals are also exempt from paying application and biometric fees.
The government emphasized that these special measures are intended to provide practical relief for those prioritizing their safety and recovery. Full details about eligibility and the application process are available on the official website of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
This initiative reflects Canada’s commitment to providing compassionate and timely support during crises, ensuring that both citizens and foreign responders receive the assistance they need without unnecessary delays or costs.
The Government of Canada has issued a notice, effective July 4, 2025, announcing changes to the pre‑removal risk assessment (PRRA) process for nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Under the revised policy, individuals from the DRC who received a final negative decision on their refugee claim from the Immigration and Refugee Board or the Federal Court between July 5, 2024, and July 4, 2025, including those whose PRRA was refused, may now be eligible to reapply for a PRRA, provided they remain subject to an enforceable removal order. This change recognizes a significant deterioration in conditions in the DRC and allows eligible individuals to access protection without waiting the standard 12‑month bar period.
However, applicants who receive a final negative decision after July 4, 2025, will not be eligible to reapply for a PRRA until after the usual 12‑month waiting period has passed, as any recent country‑condition changes are presumed to have already been considered during their initial proceedings. The PRRA is a crucial safeguard designed to prevent the removal of individuals to a country where they may face persecution, torture, or other forms of serious harm. Given that the Government of Canada currently advises Canadians and residents to “avoid all travel” to the DRC due to civil unrest and high security risks, this policy update is a critical response to the ongoing crisis in the region. It ensures that DRC nationals whose previous claims were denied within the specified period have a timely opportunity to seek protection before removal.
Québec has officially released the invitation criteria and scoring system for its reinvented skilled worker pathway (PSTQ), which replaces the former Regular Skilled Worker Program (PRTQ). Launched in early July 2025 via a ministerial order, the PSTQ operates across four streams, highly skilled, intermediate/manual, regulated professions, and exceptional talent, each targeting distinct labour-market needs. Selection is points-based, with an enhanced emphasis on French proficiency, Québec-issued diplomas, and Québec work experience, especially in non–urban regions.
Entry into the PSTQ system begins with submitting an Expression of Interest (EOI) through Québec’s Arrima portal (and updating any profiles submitted before November 29, 2024). Québec plans to issue invitations throughout July 2025, prioritizing candidates already residing in Québec, those fluent in French, with local employment or study experience, and in in-demand occupations. Scores are assigned based on the published ministerial criteria, and invitations are issued to the highest-ranking candidates per round.
These changes underscore Québec’s strategy to attract individuals likely to successfully integrate and contribute to its francophone communities, while streamlining processing with a transparent, points-based system.
Issue: Was the initial refusal of a spousal open work permit and related visas reasonable, could the reconsideration refusal be judicially reviewed despite being filed late and whether the reconsideration decision rendered the initial refusal moot.
Facts: The applicants, a Pakistani mother and her three children, applied to join her husband in Canada. The officer refused their applications, citing weak ties to Pakistan. A reconsideration request via an MP was denied without detailed reasons. Judicial review was sought for both decisions, but only the initial decision was challenged within the 60-day timeline.
Court Findings: First decision: The officer’s failure to address key evidence rendered the decision unreasonable under the standard in Vavilov. The officer’s reasoning focused only on what the applicant lacked (employment), without grappling with what was actually presented, undermining the transparency and justification requirements of a reasonable decision.
Reconsideration Decision: Although the applicants argued they received the decision on July 15, 2024, they failed to rebut IRCC’s evidence showing it was communicated to the MP on March 25, 2024. The Court found it reasonable for IRCC to communicate reconsideration responses through the MP who made the request (Citing Xu v. Canada (2024 FC 839).
Mootness Argument Rejected: The Court rejected the Minister’s argument that the initial refusal was moot due to the reconsideration decision. Justice Whyte Nowak held that, under Vidéotron, both the original and reconsideration decisions must be reviewed when the latter does not replace or quash the former. Since the reconsideration merely reaffirmed the original refusal without new reasoning and only addressed the principal applicant, not her children, the original decision remained active and justiciable.
Outcome: Judicial review of the initial refusal granted and remitted. Judicial review of the reconsideration decision dismissed as out of time.
Why This Case is Important:
Issue: Whether the refusal of the applicants’ permanent residence applications under the Family Class and the denial of humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief were reasonable.
Facts: Simegn and Gebremikael Bayeh, orphaned siblings from Ethiopia, applied for permanent residence in the Family Class sponsored by their brother Dessie in Canada. IRCC denied the application, finding the applicants were over 18 and not de facto dependents. H&C considerations were also rejected.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer reasonably applied the regulations (s. 117(1)(f) IRPR) and conducted an appropriate analysis of dependency and H&C factors, including financial support, communication, and best interests of the child (BIOC). The court rejected arguments that the officer ignored relevant evidence.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that age at time of application is decisive for orphaned sibling sponsorship under IRPR 117(1)(f), and illustrates the limits of H&C discretion where dependency is not sufficiently established.
Issue: Whether the decision to find the principal applicant inadmissible for serious criminality and misrepresentation was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Facts: The applicant, a Cuban national, was sponsored by his Canadian spouse. IRCC found he failed to disclose a past assault incident in Oman, resulting in a charge and injuries to his ex-fiancée. He claimed misunderstanding due to limited English and denied the allegations.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer provided sufficient procedural fairness via two procedural fairness letters. The officer’s findings on serious criminality under IRPA s.36(1)(c) and misrepresentation under s.40(1)(a) were supported by the evidence and not unreasonable. The BIOC analysis concerning the couple’s child was deemed adequate.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that procedural fairness requires disclosure of the “gist” of concerns, not all documents, and reinforces that officers can rely on third-party evidence if properly disclosed and weighed.
Issue: Whether the refusal of the applicants’ H&C application improperly relied on the Administrative Deferral of Removals (ADR) to avoid a proper hardship analysis.
Facts: Ukrainian nationals in Canada under CUAET applied for H&C relief. The principal applicant had a prior conviction in the U.S. and faced a removal order. The officer declined to exempt them under s. 25(1) IRPA, relying heavily on the ADR in place for Ukraine.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer failed to assess the personal hardship and mental health risks in the context of the war, and improperly used the ADR to downplay the immediate risks. This overreliance on the ADR tainted the H&C analysis.
Outcome: Application granted; decision quashed and remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Establishes that an ADR cannot substitute a proper hardship analysis under s. 25(1), especially when serious risks are alleged.
Issue: Whether IRCC’s refusal of an open work permit and restoration of status was unreasonable and breached procedural fairness.
Facts: An Indian national sought to restore her status and extend her work permit under a 2023 Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) public policy. IRCC denied the application due to the absence of a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), treating it as a standard open work permit application.
Court Findings: The Court found that the applicant did not indicate in her application that she was applying under the public policy, nor did she follow IRCC’s explicit instructions. The officer was justified in applying the standard LMIA requirement.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Emphasizes that applicants bear the onus of clearly identifying their eligibility under public policies and following specific procedural instructions.
Issue: What is the appropriate quantum of costs where the Minister’s conduct led to findings of abuse of process and delay?
Facts: In prior proceedings, the Court found that the Minister’s failure to secure witness testimony and breach of candour constituted abuse of process. The Respondent sought solicitor-client costs or substantial indemnity.
Court Findings: While costs were justified due to the delay and abuse of process, the Court declined to award solicitor-client or substantial indemnity costs, noting the matter was not exceptionally complex.
Outcome: Costs of $5,500 awarded as a lump sum (approx. 25% of Tariff B column V).
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies the threshold for awarding costs in immigration proceedings and reaffirms the preference for lump sum awards, even where misconduct is established.
Issue: Whether the CBSA officer’s refusal to defer the applicants’ removal should be judicially reviewed despite the matter becoming moot.
Facts: Nigerian nationals, including two school-aged children, sought deferral of removal until the end of the school year. While awaiting a decision, the Federal Court stayed their removal. The requested deferral became moot once the school year ended and removal was not carried out.
Court Findings: The Court agreed the matter was moot since the deferral period requested had passed. It declined to exercise discretion to hear the moot matter, noting the issues raised were fact-specific and unlikely to produce broader legal guidance. It also rejected arguments that findings in the decision could unfairly prejudice future applications.
Outcome: Application dismissed as moot; style of cause corrected to name the appropriate minister.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies when judicial review of deferral decisions becomes moot and reinforces that courts will not hear moot cases unless broader legal issues or systemic concerns are at stake.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff’s appeal of the Associate Judge’s decision to strike his statement of claim without leave to amend should be allowed.
Facts: Arfaeian failed to attend citizenship hearings in 2012–2013. His file was closed in 2013, but he took no action until 2024, when he sued the Minister claiming misfeasance and unjust enrichment. His claim was struck as incomprehensible and disclosing no reasonable cause of action. He appealed under Rule 51.
Court Findings: The appeal was dismissed. The judge found no error in the Associate Judge’s reasoning. The claim was deficient, incoherent, and unsalvageable by amendment. The new evidence Arfaeian submitted on appeal was inadmissible and irrelevant, and he failed to identify any legal error in the striking order.
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; proceeding terminated pursuant to Rule 168.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that Federal Court will strike claims that are incoherent or disclose no cause of action, and highlights the limited scope of appeals from Associate Judges under Rule 51.
Issue: Whether the refusal of the applicants’ H&C application and failure to consider a TRP request was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Facts: Iranian nationals with Canadian-citizen daughters applied for PR under H&C grounds, citing health issues, family support, and grandparental role. They also requested a TRP as alternative relief. The officer refused the H&C request and did not address the TRP.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer reasonably addressed each H&C factor—establishment, health, country conditions, and BIOC. The refusal was supported and justified. However, the failure to consider the TRP was a breach of procedural fairness and required remittal.
Outcome: Judicial review granted in part; TRP request remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces the duty to address all forms of relief sought in an application, and that TRP requests cannot be ignored when expressly made alongside H&C submissions.
Issue: Whether the CBSA officer’s refusal to defer removal failed to consider the best interests of the applicant’s young child.
Facts: Bhat, an Indian national, faced removal despite having court-ordered access to his Canadian son. He had applied for a TRP and requested deferral to preserve the father-son relationship during the TRP processing time.
Court Findings: The officer failed to meaningfully assess the short-term best interests of the child, particularly the importance of direct contact with his father. The boilerplate reference to possible contact via visits or technology was insufficient.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a different enforcement officer.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that even in deferral contexts, CBSA must seriously consider the short-term best interests of minor children potentially affected by a parent’s removal.
Issue: Whether a mandamus application remained justiciable after PR was granted, and whether costs or removal of inadvertently disclosed documents were warranted.
Facts: Burundian refugee applicants filed for mandamus due to processing delays. After the hearing, IRCC granted PR. The applicants disclosed a favourable inadmissibility decision obtained via the online portal. The Minister sought to exclude that document from the Court record.
Court Findings: The Court found the matter moot and refused to award costs, noting the delay was not egregious and no abuse occurred. It allowed the April 7 decision to remain on record, citing openness of court proceedings and lack of prejudice.
Outcome: Application dismissed as moot; no costs awarded; disputed document remains on record.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that inadvertent disclosure does not automatically justify sealing court records, and that not all mandamus cases with long delays justify costs.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an H&C application was reasonable, especially in light of alleged hardship and discrimination in Bosnia and Croatia.
Facts: Sukan, a citizen of Bosnia and Croatia, applied for H&C relief after his earlier application was refused and set aside by the Court. He cited fear of ethnic discrimination, family support in Canada, and age-related reintegration issues.
Court Findings: The officer gave fair consideration to establishment and social support in Canada but found weak evidence of hardship in Croatia or Bosnia. Country conditions and personal circumstances did not demonstrate compelling reasons for relief.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that applicants bear the burden of presenting detailed evidence of hardship and cannot rely on generalized concerns or reweighing of evidence to justify H&C relief.
For comprehensive legal analysis or strategic case support, contact Greenberg Hameed PC.
The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.
in**@*************ed.com
Click on the blurred section to reveal the full email address.
Suite 2079 – 325 Front Street West, Toronto, ON, M5V 2Y1
Business hours
Monday to Friday: 9 a.m to 5 p.m
Saturdays:
Sundays: Closed
View our full Privacy Policy.