Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Immigrant entrepreneurs in Canada are facing growing frustration over multi-year delays under the Start-Up Visa (SUV) program, once touted as a fast-track to permanent residency (PR). Despite building businesses, securing contracts, and creating jobs, many applicants, like Steeson Mathew of Loop Parking and the founders of COOCO, remain stuck in temporary status, unable to access loans, grants, or investors without PR.
As of July 2025, over 42,000 applications are in the system, with more than 16,000 pending for two years or more, and the official processing time now exceeds 51 months. The delays have impacted both business growth and personal lives, with some founders unable to travel or start families due to immigration uncertainty.
While the government has introduced caps on designated organizations and lowered PR targets to manage the backlog, current applicants say these changes offer no relief for those already in the system. They are urging IRCC to implement faster processing, prioritization for active businesses, and greater transparency.
Without action, they warn, Canada risks losing its appeal as a destination for global innovators. (CBC News)
As of July 29, 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has begun proactively including officer decision notes with refusal letters for select immigration applications, including temporary resident visas (excluding eTAs and TRPs), visitor records, study permits, and work permits. The move is part of an effort to increase transparency and reduce the overwhelming number of access-to-information (ATIP) requests that applicants previously relied on to understand their refusals.
The change is significant: in 2022–2023, 78% of federal ATIP requests were directed to IRCC, which has seen a threefold increase in such requests since 2017. The system has become heavily backlogged, with over 51,000 outstanding requests and average response times of 90 days. A recent report from the Information Commissioner criticized IRCC’s failure to implement a more direct and effective way for applicants to access their immigration information.
While the new policy is a step forward, it is limited in scope: clients using IRCC’s new online portal are currently excluded, and certain note content may still be withheld due to privacy or security concerns. Over time, IRCC plans to expand the initiative to other application types. (Toronto Star)
Canada is planning major changes to its Temporary Foreign Worker Program, including stream-specific work permits, higher housing deductions (5–30%), and a shift to median regional wages. The proposals also include new housing safety standards (by 2027), mandatory private health insurance, and recovery of travel costs from workers.
While the government says the reforms aim to increase mobility and reduce administrative burden, migrant advocates say the changes don’t address exploitation or power imbalances. Critics argue the renamed permits remain employer-controlled, and rising costs will worsen workers’ financial hardship.
A Migrant Rights Network survey showed strong opposition: 93% said tied permits limit rights, 65% opposed housing deductions, and 79% wanted health care independent of employers. Advocates are calling for permanent residency pathways as the only real solution to systemic abuse. (Toronto Star)
On July 29, 2025, IRCC introduced a new initiative to enhance service transparency by providing “Officer Decision Notes” (ODNs) alongside refusal letters for certain application types. These notes, sourced from the decision-making officer, are intended to give applicants clearer access to personal information and reasoning for refusals.
ODNs are currently included with refusal letters for applications such as:
The rollout will expand to other application categories in phases. Notably, clients using the IRCC Portal – New version will not receive ODNs at this time. While IRCC may redact portions of the notes for privacy or security reasons, the ODNs are sent proactively with the refusal letter. (Source)
Effective July 31, 2025, foreign physicians intending to work in underserved regions of Quebec no longer need to apply for two separate work permits, one for the assessment or adaptation period and another for the subsequent practice period.
Under the revised policy, eligible physicians can now apply for a single employer-specific work permit issued under Administrative Code C10 (R205(a) – Significant Benefit), valid for up to 5 years. This permit covers both:
The change streamlines the process for physicians and supports faster workforce integration in critical care areas. Applications received on or after July 31, 2025, will be assessed using the new criteria, while those submitted before that date will follow the prior instructions. (Source)
As of July 30, 2025, IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions to reflect the June 2024 ministerial changes to the Home Child Care Provider (HCCP) and Home Support Worker (HSW) pilots. These changes impact how foreign workers and permanent residence applicants under these pilots are assessed.
Key Updates Include:
C90 Permit Changes:
Instructions now account for cases where HCCP/HSW applicants meet work experience requirements before receiving an occupation-restricted open work permit (OROWP).
A75 Permit Changes:
Bridging open work permit (BOWP) guidelines were updated to align with the new HCCP and HSW pilot criteria.
Other Notable Changes:
These updates reflect IRCC’s effort to streamline caregiver pathways and align open work permit issuance with revised permanent residence eligibility requirements. (Source)
Concerns have surfaced in North Okanagan-Shuswap over allegations that some employers are illegally charging money or demanding favours from immigration applicants in exchange for RCIP-endorsed job offers. Some applicants are also reportedly offering payments or services to secure these jobs, which qualify them for permanent residency under the Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP).
These actions violate Canadian immigration laws, particularly Section 127 of the IRPA, which prohibits misrepresentation in immigration applications. Both employers and applicants engaging in such arrangements face severe legal consequences, including:
For Employers:
For Applicants:
The abuse threatens not just legal accountability but also undermines public trust in the RCIP and could jeopardize the future of the program in the community.
Community members are urged to report any suspected misconduct to the RCIP North Okanagan-Shuswap team at in**@**********************ap.com, with as much detail and evidence as possible.
Bottom line: Any form of payment or favour in exchange for immigration-related job offers is illegal. Transparency, fairness, and accountability must guide all RCIP processes to preserve the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. (Source)
On August 1, 2025, the Government of Canada announced the extension of special temporary measures for Palestinians in Canada who are unable to return home due to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Originally introduced in December 2023, the measures allow Palestinians in Canada, as well as foreign national family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who left Gaza on or after October 7, 2023, to apply for fee-exempt:
As of July 8, 2025:
IRCC acknowledges that many applicants are still unable to exit Gaza to complete biometric steps and continues to advocate for their safe passage.
The extension reaffirms Canada’s commitment to offering temporary refuge, supporting displaced Gazans through health coverage, settlement services, and ongoing application processing for extended family members. The government remains actively engaged in monitoring and adjusting its response to the crisis. (Source)
The Yukon Community Program pilot officially ended on June 30, 2025, following the completion of a multi-year agreement between the Government of Yukon and Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Launched in 2020 and extended in 2023, the five-year pilot was designed to address local labour shortages by offering a flexible alternative to standard nomination pathways.
Unlike traditional nomination streams, the pilot allowed candidates to combine up to three part-time jobs to meet the full-time work requirement for the Yukon Nominee Program.
While the pilot has concluded, employers and foreign workers can still access existing Yukon Nominee Program streams, including:
These streams will continue under an invitational system aligned with Yukon’s 2025 labour market priorities, shaped through engagement with industry and business stakeholders.
Quick Facts:
The pilot demonstrated an innovative model for rural economic immigration, and its evaluation may inform future regional immigration strategies. (Source)
Issue: Whether the delay in processing the applicants’ permanent residence application justified granting a writ of mandamus.
Facts: The applicants submitted a family class permanent residence application sponsored by their daughter in January 2021. Despite completing all requested steps, including medical exams and document updates, the application remained in security screening as of May 2025. They sought mandamus to compel IRCC to make a decision.
Court Findings: Justice Manson found that the delay of over 52 months was unreasonable, particularly given the family reunification context. The applicants met the conditions for mandamus under Apotex, including the public duty to act, the clear right to performance, and the lack of adequate remedy. The Respondent’s argument that the scheduled interview rendered the application moot was rejected.
Outcome: Mandamus granted. IRCC ordered to process the application within 90 days.
Why This Case is Important: This decision reaffirms that prolonged and unexplained delays, especially in family reunification contexts, may warrant judicial intervention through mandamus, even where security screening is ongoing.
Issue: Whether a mandamus application becomes moot if a decision is issued on the underlying application just before the court hearing.
Facts: Mr. Khan filed for mandamus in May 2024 to compel IRCC to decide his PR application, pending since 2019. Three days before the hearing, IRCC refused the application on inadmissibility grounds under s. 34(1)(f), and his TRV was cancelled.
Court Findings: Justice Sadrehashemi ruled the matter was moot, as a decision had been made. Mr. Khan’s arguments about the unfairness of the refusal and cancellation were not properly before the Court in this application.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed as moot.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores the importance of distinguishing between procedural and substantive grounds in mandamus applications, and confirms that courts will dismiss such applications when a final decision has been rendered.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit application was unreasonable due to failure to consider submitted evidence.
Facts: Mr. Mohammad, supported by an LMIA, applied for a work permit. The officer refused the application due to lack of bank statements and tax documents to corroborate claimed work experience, despite reference letters and pay slips being provided.
Court Findings: Justice Gleeson found the decision unreasonable, as the officer failed to assess the evidence on file and gave no justification why financial documents were indispensable.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: The case reiterates the requirement for visa officers to meaningfully engage with all submitted evidence and justify their decisions, particularly in the context of employment-related applications.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable to refuse refugee protection to an applicant for not seeking asylum in other countries before applying to Canada.
Facts: Mr. Sahloul, a Syrian national residing in the UAE, claimed refugee protection due to risk of persecution if returned to Syria. His application was refused on the basis that he had not sought protection in other Convention states he had visited.
Court Findings: Justice Régimbald ruled the refusal was unreasonable. The officer’s reliance on “asylum shopping” as a legal basis for rejection was unsupported by the Convention or IRPA. The Court found the officer ignored the applicant’s credible fear and the precarious nature of his residency in the UAE.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that claimants are not required to seek asylum at the first opportunity or in every safe country visited. The decision condemns reliance on the “asylum shopping” rationale in the absence of legal support or application of Article 1E.
Issue: Whether the officer’s interpretation of “subversion” under s. 34(1)(b.1) IRPA to include preserving the status quo was reasonable.
Facts: The applicant, a former member of Ukraine’s SBU, was found inadmissible for belonging to an organization that allegedly engaged in subversion against democratic institutions. The applicant challenged this interpretation and the fairness of the decision process.
Court Findings: Justice Battista upheld the officer’s interpretation, finding it consistent with the purpose of s. 34(1)(b.1) to protect Canadian democratic values. The Court also rejected arguments about the lack of organizational intent and the credibility of the evidence used.
Outcome: Application dismissed; one question certified regarding the definition of “subversion.”
Why This Case is Important: The case sets a precedent on how broadly “subversion” can be interpreted under IRPA and affirms that resisting democratic change can fall within its scope.
Issue: Whether the officer’s assessment of hardship and best interests of the child (BIOC) in an H&C application was reasonable.
Facts: The applicants, an Ethiopian-Italian family, applied under s. 25(1) IRPA citing racial discrimination and psychological harm if returned to Italy. The officer rejected the application, minimizing the hardship and BIOC evidence.
Court Findings: Justice Favel found the officer failed to meaningfully assess the psychological and racial hardship evidence and mischaracterized basic living conditions (e.g., having running water) as indicative of no hardship. The officer also wrongly dismissed mental health conditions by focusing on treatment availability rather than the adverse impacts of removal.
Outcome: Application allowed; matter remitted to a different decision-maker.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces the need for empathetic, individualized consideration of hardship, particularly involving mental health and systemic racism, in H&C assessments.
Issue: Whether a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) decision should be set aside due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Facts: The applicants’ former immigration consultant submitted an H&C application without any evidence or submissions on hardship. The officer rejected the application, citing lack of hardship evidence. The applicants’ new counsel filed for judicial review, alleging ineffective representation.
Court Findings: Justice Turley found the former counsel’s representation was incompetent, failed to present critical hardship evidence, and prejudiced the applicants’ case. The Court exercised discretion to consider the allegations despite procedural irregularities.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a new officer with an opportunity to submit new evidence.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that failures by counsel to properly prepare an H&C application may constitute a miscarriage of justice requiring redetermination, especially where core factors like hardship and best interests of children are overlooked.
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.