Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Penalties for abuses in Canada’s TFWP are surging: IRCC levied $6.8M in fines from January to September 2025 (65% above 2024), issuing 214 fines averaging $31,971 and 24 temporary bans. Severe cases include a shellfish processor fined $1 million with a 10-year bar for failing to ensure a workplace free from abuse, and a trucking firm fined $ 280,000 with a 10-year bar over mismatched job terms.
Context: Program use spiked post-pandemic but is slowing under hiring caps. Inspections target closed-permit employers and are triggered by past non-compliance, random selection, or allegations.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre says his party won’t back the Liberals’ Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2) without major changes over privacy/civil-liberties concerns; the bill would broaden powers to open mail, cancel/suspend immigration documents, and let police obtain subscriber data from online platforms without a warrant, and in a minority House the NDP, Bloc and Greens have voiced similar overreach worries.
(CBC News)
Trump’s new US$100K H-1B fee is seen as a talent-opening for Canada, but experts warn the U.S. could instead poach workers from Canada via uncapped CUSMA/TN routes; Ottawa’s 2023 H-1B open-WP experiment (10k cap filled in two days) is cited as flawed, and any response should be job-tied with robust PR pathways to retain talent, mindful of domestic pressures like high youth unemployment and recently reduced intakes.
Manitoba’s new Economic Development Strategy proposes developing a start–up–focused immigration option within the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP), jointly with IRCC, to attract venture-backed, high-growth firms (especially in the tech sector) while modernizing entrepreneur streams.
The plan flags faster, clearer criteria for founders (recognizing entrepreneurial/self-employed experience), complementary investor/succession options to sustain SMEs, and tighter alignment with priority sectors (e.g., advanced manufacturing, agri-food, clean tech, life sciences). Specific program design, timelines, and eligibility are to be worked out, but the direction is clear: reduce red tape, plug talent into Manitoba’s innovation agenda, and retain founders with a viable PR path.
(Source 1)
IRCC issued a Program Delivery Update removing the legacy C12 (“Significant benefit – ICTs – International agreements”) guidance and directing officers and applicants to use the refreshed International Mobility Program instructions under R205(a) codes C61–C63; in practice, stop citing C12 and align all new/pending ICT/FTA filings with the updated C61–C63 pages.
(Source)
British Columbia notes BC Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP) got 1,254 extra 2025 nominations to support existing priorities (healthcare, entrepreneurs, high-impact) and to process part of the 2,240 waitlisted IPG files; at the same time, B.C. is still operating under a 4,000 cap for 2025 (expect slower processing and limited, high-impact ITAs), and the province launched a redesigned WelcomeBC.ca plus the 2025 B.C. Newcomers’ Guide.
(Source)
CBSA announced that, following a 2023 investigation, Hugues Mbala Diata (Montreal) faces 22 IRPA charges for facilitating the illegal entry of several nationals of the DRC, including counselling misrepresentation (s.126), misrepresentation (s.127), possession/using/forgery of false documents (s.122(1)(a)–(c)), aiding the use of false documents (s.131 with s.122(1)(b)), and acting as an unauthorized representative (s.91); the charges were laid Oct 1, 2025 and remain to be proven in court.
(Source)
IRCC published new guidance clarifying how changes to a Sponsorship Agreement Holder’s (SAH) agreement status affect processing of their in-process caseload, outlining criteria that can trigger a status change and the pathway to resolution/next steps; stakeholders should consult the updated “SAH agreement actions” instructions.
(Source)
IRCC issued a program delivery update (Oct 3, 2025) correcting errors in the French study-permit instructions and updating the “Study permit invalidity” section in both languages; related pages revised include Study permits: Assessing conditions, Making an application, and Letters of acceptance.
(Source)
IRCC updated its instructions for the temporary public policy creating a family-based permanent residence pathway for people affected by the conflict in Sudan who have family in Canada, clarifying processing under this humanitarian stream focused on reunification and supported settlement/integration.
(Source)
Issue: Judicial review of a refusal under the Start-Up Business Class based on IRPR 89(b) (“artificial transactions”), i.e., whether the applicant’s participation was primarily to obtain status rather than to engage in the committed business activity.
Facts: Iranian founder (AIponix Technologies, incubated at Manitoba Technology Accelerator) applied in Oct 2021. Over late-2023, IRCC sought multiple updates; a Jan 8, 2024 PFL flagged IRPR 89(b) concerns about lack of MVP progress and essential operations in Canada. The applicant responded with explanations and materials; on May 3, 2024, the officer refused, concluding 89(b) was not met.
Court Findings: The Court held the decision was reasonable. The record showed repeated opportunities to address progress; the PFL clearly framed 89(b) concerns; and the officer’s final reasons, read with GCMS notes, adequately explained why concerns remained. The Court emphasized that IRPR 98.10(1) “substituted evaluation” is permissive, not obligatory; mischaracterization arguments about the business plan did not undermine the core 89(b) analysis.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Strengthens the use of IRPR 89(b) in SUBC files: clear PFLs and demonstrated lack of substantive progress can reasonably ground an “artificial transaction” finding, and officers are not compelled to exercise substituted evaluation under IRPR 98.10(1).
Issue: Was a refusal under the Atlantic Immigration Class reasonable where the applicant’s experience letter described higher-TEER managerial duties?
Facts: Applicant had an endorsed job offer at one TEER level, but her work-experience letter emphasized many duties typical of higher-TEER managerial roles; the officer found the job-offer TEER didn’t match the experience requirement in IRPR 87.3(6)(d)(iii).
Court Findings: The question is whether the officer’s reading was reasonable, not whether another reading existed. Given the managerial content, the refusal was reasonable; no error in not addressing s.24/s.25 relief absent a request.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed; no certified question/costs.
Why This Case is Important: Emphasizes careful alignment between job-offer TEER and proven work duties under the Atlantic Immigration Program; experience letters can sink an application if they skew too “managerial.”
Issue: Was IRCC’s refusal of a C11 “significant benefit” work permit for a self-employed legal services venture reasonable?
Facts: The Iranian applicant proposed a self-employed legal services practice serving the Iranian-Canadian community. The officer refused, giving no meaningful explanation for rejecting detailed, tailored evidence (letters of support, market need, business plan).
Court Findings: The officer’s reasons did not reveal a “chain of logic,” failed to engage with the evidence, and lacked justification, transparency and intelligibility under Vavilov; supplemental reasoning cannot be supplied by counsel after the fact.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that C11 refusals must grapple with the applicant’s specific evidence and articulate a coherent path to the result, post-hoc rationalizations won’t cure gaps.
Issue: Was a finding of inadmissibility under IRPA s.35(1)(b) (being a “senior official” in a regime engaged in gross human rights violations) reasonable?
Facts: IRCC determined the applicant held a senior position with an Iranian entity implicated in advancing the Islamic Republic’s political/religious hegemony, triggering s.35(1)(b) inadmissibility.
Court Findings: On the record, it was open to the officer to conclude the role was “senior,” and the Court would not reweigh evidence; the officer’s findings met reasonableness.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Illustrates the deferential approach to s.35(1)(b) “senior official” assessments where evidence plausibly supports the role’s seniority and nexus to a repressive apparatus.
Issue: Did the IAD reasonably dismiss a third spousal-sponsorship appeal for lack of jurisdiction on res judicata, and was there any PF breach?
Facts: After earlier refusals and a 2020 IAD decision finding the marriage not genuine following a full hearing, the IAD dismissed a later appeal as barred by res judicata; the sponsor argued new evidence (including pregnancy/child) and sought an oral hearing.
Court Findings: The IAD reasonably applied res judicata (all three preconditions met); the “decisive new evidence” exception wasn’t triggered, pregnancy/child wasn’t determinative absent proven paternity and didn’t address core credibility concerns; no duty to hold an oral hearing on these facts; no PF breach.
Outcome: Application dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Sets out a clear, practical roadmap on res judicata in sponsorship appeals, what counts as “decisive” new evidence, and when an oral hearing isn’t required.
Issue: Whether a study permit refusal was reasonable where the officer discounted the applicant’s study plan and employer-backed career pathway.
Facts: 38-year-old Iranian applicant sought a graduate certificate in project management at Cambrian College. He filed a study plan and employer letters promising promotion and a substantial salary increase conditional on program completion. The officer found the program benefits unclear and concluded he would not leave Canada.
Court Findings: Unreasonable. The officer failed to engage with crucial record evidence, especially the employer letter explicitly tying promotion and pay to the Canadian credential, so the reasons lacked the “responsive justification” Vavilov requires.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal quashed and remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that in study permits, generic reasoning is insufficient where the record contains concrete, career-linked evidence explaining “why this program in Canada”; officers must grapple with that evidence.
Issue: Reasonableness of a study permit refusal citing cheaper local alternatives, insufficient program rationale, and doubts about academic ability.
Facts: Iranian applicant admitted to Langara. The officer refused for three reasons: similar local programs at lower cost; insufficient rationale for the Canadian program; and questioned academic proficiency, leading to a negative “will leave” finding.
Court Findings: Unreasonable. The officer didn’t engage with the applicant’s evidence, including an employer letter linking study to a concrete role with higher pay. The “cheaper at home” point lacked any objective reference to comparable programs, and the concern about academic proficiency was unsupported despite acceptance and prior grades. Reasons failed Vavilov’s “responsive justification” requirement.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that “local, cheaper alternatives” and “academic proficiency” rationales must be anchored in the record; officers must address employer-linked study rationales directly.
Issue: Whether an H&C refusal properly assessed the family’s personalized risk from organized crime in Mexico and adequately analyzed the best interests of the child (BIOC).
Facts: Mexican family sought in-Canada PR on H&C, relying on establishment, undue hardship, and risk from a cartel (Los Zetas), plus BIOC for children aged 13 and 8. The officer refused, assigning limited weight to establishment, finding insufficient personalized risk, and treating BIOC as only somewhat positive.
Court Findings: Unreasonable. The decision failed to account for detailed, personalized risk evidence described in the written submissions, and the BIOC analysis was superficial, omitting the younger child’s age-specific circumstances. Vavilov requires reasons that grapple with key submissions; that did not occur.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed; remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Underscores that H&C assessments must meaningfully engage with narrative, individualized risk evidence and must conduct a child-specific BIOC analysis (including age and circumstances), not a generic treatment.
Issue: Reasonableness of a TRV refusal where the officer relied on “significant family ties in Canada” and provenance-of-funds concerns, in a context where the entire immediate family applied to visit a sibling in Canada.
Facts: Applicant (Russian national) applied with both parents to visit his sister in Canada; he is a student and all three live in Russia. The officer refused based on family ties in Canada and funds.
Court Findings: Reasonable. With all immediate family members traveling together to visit the only other family member in Canada, leaving no close family in Russia, it was open to the officer to find strong ties in Canada and to conclude the “will leave” burden was not met. In TRV contexts, brief reasons can suffice when they align with the record.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms officers may reasonably infer elevated overstay risk from strong Canadian family ties, especially when an entire immediate family seeks to travel together, consistent with s.183(1) IRPR and TRV jurisprudence.
Issue: Reasonableness of a TRV refusal that said the applicant lacked “significant family ties outside Canada,” despite record evidence of a spouse, stepson, parents, and siblings in Iran; remedy despite passage of intended travel dates.
Facts: Iranian mother sought a 10-month TRV to accompany her seven-year-old Canadian-citizen daughter for primary school in Toronto. The officer refused for two reasons: no significant family ties outside Canada; purpose not consistent with a temporary stay. GCMS notes also questioned proof of the daughter’s schooling.
Court Findings: Unreasonable. The “no family ties” conclusion was unintelligible against the Family Information Form showing multiple close relatives in Iran, and the officer failed to address that evidence. On remedy, although the original dates had passed, the matter was not moot; remittal would allow updated dates and serve a useful purpose.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal quashed and remitted to a different decision-maker, with an opportunity to update the application.
Why This Case is Important: Reiterates that TRV decisions must reconcile “family ties” findings with the actual record and that expired travel windows do not automatically moot review; remittal can still provide meaningful relief.
Issue: Was CBSA’s refusal to defer removal reasonable where the applicant had multiple prior H&C/TRP processes?
Facts: The applicant sought a deferral of removal, pointing to establishment in Canada, hardship on return to Jamaica, and best interests of his children, issues already canvassed in previous negative H&C decisions not judicially reviewed.
Court Findings: Arguments amounted to asking the Court to reweigh evidence; given multiple prior applications over seven years, it was reasonable to conclude no further deferral was warranted.
Outcome: Application dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that deferral is exceptional; repeating factors already adjudicated in past H&C/TRP decisions typically won’t justify postponing removal.
Issue: Was a TRV refusal reasonable where the officer discounted “pull factors” and questioned purpose of visit?
Facts: The officer said there were insufficient “pull” factors to Iran and that the purpose of visit seemed unreasonable, despite acknowledging the applicant wished to visit immediate family in Canada.
Court Findings: The officer ignored significant evidence of ties (stable long-term employment, property, assets, travel history with returns) and gave incoherent reasoning about purpose. Unreasonable under Vavilov/Aghaalikhani.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside and remitted to a different officer on a priority basis.
Why This Case is Important: Strong reminder that TRV officers must engage with all key pull-factor evidence and avoid internal contradictions when assessing purpose and ties.
Issue: Was refusal of an open study permit (minor child) reasonable under IRPR s.220 (sufficient funds requirement)?
Facts: A minor sought an open study permit to be with her mother in Canada. The officer focused on funds and compliance considerations under s.220.
Court Findings: On the record, the officer’s focus on proof of funds and compliance was open to them; no reviewable error.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that even for minors, s.220’s financial sufficiency/compliance requirements are determinative; applicants must clearly substantiate funds.
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.