Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Ottawa will give some provinces a late-year top-up of Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) spots after this year’s national PNP cap was slashed from 110,000 to 55,000; Minister Lena Metlege Diab says “slippage” in broader immigration targets freed up extra spaces. The PNP lets provinces pick newcomers with skills that fill local job gaps. Details for 2026 will come in the updated levels plan “in the coming weeks,” and Diab repeated that her mandate is to lower overall immigration. (City News)
Support for immigration has slipped, with recent IRCC and Environics polling showing more Canadians now say levels are “too high.” The column argues that cutting back would hurt Canada long-term: we need newcomers to grow the economy and help fund programs for an aging population, especially as fertility has fallen to a record 1.26 children per woman. Population size also matters for security and influence, the Canadian Armed Forces is short roughly 14,000 personnel. The takeaway: fix bottlenecks like housing and manage the system better, rather than slashing immigration. (The Globe and Mail)
Canadians remain skeptical but a touch less negative on immigration: 56% now say Canada admits “too many” immigrants (down 2 pts). The big story is polarization, 82% of Conservatives agree, versus 40% of Liberals, 30% of NDP, and 57% of Bloc supporters. Concerns are shifting to who gets in (43% say many refugee claimants aren’t “real”; 60% say newcomers aren’t adopting Canadian values), and views that Ottawa is managing immigration poorly jumped in Ontario (36%, +15) and B.C. (32%, +16). (Toronto Star)
A New Brunswick fish plant (Bolero Shellfish Processing) is asking the Federal Court to overturn a record $1-million fine and 10-year ban from Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The company states that Employment and Social Development Canada took more than four years to investigate, making it difficult to respond, and that the penalties are disproportionate and damaging. Federal findings cited problems such as short hours, improper deductions, and overtime, as well as gaps in private health insurance. Bolero states that COVID-era slowdowns led to fewer shifts, workers were still paid for 30 hours, and any salary advances were forgiven. It seeks to have the September 17 decision quashed and a public retraction of related statements. (CBC News)
Ontario changed the rules to compete in the first round for family medicine residency spots; doctors trained outside Canada must have completed at least two years of Ontario high school. Physician groups call this discriminatory and warn that it will shrink the eligible pool from approximately 1,200 to roughly 200, potentially leaving seats unfilled at a time when about two million Ontarians lack access to primary care. The province states that these doctors can still apply in round two and argues that the change will build a pipeline of “Ontario-trained” doctors; however, the Canadian Resident Matching Service notes that Ontario is now the only province with a high-school requirement. (Toronto Star)
Ottawa unveiled new border-security measures, hiring 1,000 Canada Border Services Agency officers, raising trainee pay to $525/week (from $125), and changing federal pension rules so frontline officers (CBSA, parliamentary protection, search-and-rescue, firefighters, paramedics, correctional officers) can retire after 25 years without penalty, to expand CBSA’s presence at ports and crack down on stolen goods, illegal guns and drugs, organized crime, human smuggling, immigration fraud, and terrorism; the plan is paired with the October 8 introduction of Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. (Source)
The instructions for the standard immigration medical examination have been revised to align with recent procedural and policy changes. (Source)
Ottawa created a new pathway to permanent residence for French-speaking international student graduates who studied mainly in French for at least two years at participating schools outside Quebec. Graduates living in Canada can apply for permanent residence and get an open work permit for up to three years while they wait, with eligible family members included. To qualify, you must have held a study permit under this pilot, finished your program on or after April 1, 2026, live outside Quebec with valid status, and meet standard admissibility checks. The goal is to strengthen French-language communities and reduce barriers for applicants from regions with historically high refusal rates. Published Oct. 14, 2025; the policy is in effect through 2031. (Source)
Canada has introduced a targeted study-permit pathway to support more French-speaking students from specific Francophone countries (regions with historically high refusal rates) in pursuing studies at participating colleges and universities outside Quebec. To qualify, you need acceptance to a full-time program of at least two years taught primarily in French, a basic French test score (level 5 in speaking, listening, reading, and writing), and proof of funds covering first-year tuition and travel plus 75% of the local low-income cut-off. Family members can also apply for visitor, study, or work permits, and the policy relaxes the usual requirement to prove you’ll leave Canada after your studies; students can also access settlement services while studying. The 2025–26 intake is capped at 2,970 applications, and the policy runs to August 25, 2026 (or until the cap is reached). The goal is to strengthen French-language communities in Canada and reduce barriers for applicants from high-refusal regions. (Source)
The final round of invitations for all remaining pools will happen the week of October 20, 2025. Applications submitted before 9 a.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2025, will be considered for the 2025 season. (Source)
Manitoba invited 328 health-care workers already in the province to apply to the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program so they can stay and build their careers, including 187 health-care aides, 21 physicians, 11 registered nurses and other patient-care roles; the move supports staffing in hospitals, clinics and long-term care and builds on nearly 3,400 net new health-care hires since Oct. 2023, with EOI draws used to nominate workers for permanent residence based on local needs. (Source)
The Northwest Territories’ 2025 immigration nominee cap has been fully restored to 300 (back to pre-2025 levels), which the territory says will help employers fill jobs and give newcomers a clearer path to stay; the next intake will open soon. Quick facts: the 2025 allocation was first cut to 150, raised to 197 in August, and is now back to 300; the program also supports growth in small and remote communities. (Source)
Issue: Mandamus compelling a decision on a TRV outstanding since June 2022 where IRCC raised potential s. 34 concerns in a separate PR file (ex-PRC police employment/“Operation Fox Hunt”) and cited “info from partners.”
Facts: TRV filed to accompany daughter to high school; GCMS showed “awaiting info from partners” since July 27, 2022; PR application pending since Oct. 2018 with a Feb. 12, 2025 PFL on s. 34(1)(a), (b.1), (f) concerns; detailed response submitted Mar. 27, 2025; no further steps thereafter.
Court Findings: Applying Conille, the delay was longer than the nature of the process required; the applicant was not responsible; and the Minister failed to provide satisfactory justification given the inactivity after the PFL response. Mandamus issued with a 60-day deadline to decide the TRV, notwithstanding the indirect inadmissibility concerns. Costs denied.
Outcome: JR granted; order to decide the TRV within 60 days; no certified question; no costs.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that generic reliance on “security screening” cannot justify years-long inactivity, mandamus may issue (with timelines) even when admissibility concerns lurk in parallel files.
Issue: Mandamus to compel a TRV decision allegedly delayed beyond “posted averages,” where security partner checks and s. 34(1)(a) concerns were outstanding and the applicant left Canada before the hearing.
Facts: TRV filed Mar. 15, 2024; IRCC sought a CV and noted “satisfied to issue pending info from partners” (May 15, 2024 GCMS). By Sept. 2025, IRCC convened an interview re possible s. 34(1)(a) inadmissibility (espionage/activities contrary to Canada’s interests). Applicant gave no instructions, counsel was removed, the applicant returned to China, and did not withdraw or seek adjournment.
Court Findings: Application was premature; security screenings by partners justify delay and “posted processing times” do not bind IRCC. Applicant had not cleared inadmissibility screening; mandamus would improperly bypass security processes and “jump the queue.” No costs order.
Outcome: Mandamus dismissed; no certified question; no order as to costs.
Why This Case is Important: Contradicts the recent rulings regarding the blanket security checks.
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusal of a spousal open work permit (to accompany a student spouse) was reasonable where the officer concluded the applicant lacked “significant family ties outside Canada.”
Facts: Ms. Aghamahdi applied for an OWP to accompany her spouse, who held a Canadian study permit. The refusal letter (Mar. 26, 2024) cited two grounds: (1) no significant family ties outside Canada; and (2) purpose of visit inconsistent with a temporary stay. Evidence before the officer showed two children and six siblings residing in Iran.
Court Findings: The officer failed to engage with key contradictory evidence on family ties (children and six siblings in Iran). While reasons need not address every item, decision-makers must grapple with evidence that cuts against a central conclusion (citing Mendez Goyri Perez and Vavilov). The Minister’s post-hoc argument about stronger ties to the husband in Canada could not cure the original reasons.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a different officer; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: A clear reminder that boilerplate “ties” findings must engage with obvious, material contrary evidence (immediate family abroad). Vavilov bars the Court from buttressing deficient reasons with new rationales on review.
Issue: Whether the Minister’s delegate reasonably referred a permanent resident for an admissibility hearing (s. 36(1)(a) serious criminality) despite H&C submissions against referral.
Facts: Mr. Biron (PR since 2016) pleaded guilty in 2021 to sexual assault against a minor (20-month sentence). He submitted remorse, low re-offence risk, family support, and best interests of two children. The officer recommended referral; the delegate agreed and referred the matter to the ID under s. 44(2).
Court Findings: Reasons were sufficient when read with the officer’s report; the delegate reasonably weighed H&C factors against the seriousness and nature of the offence (referencing the SCC’s emphasis on gravity of sexual offences). Insufficiency of reasons is not a free-standing ground post-Vavilov.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms delegates may decline to exercise non-referral discretion where offence seriousness outweighs H&C factors, and that reasons can be read contextually with the s. 44(1) report.
Issue: Whether refusal of a PR visa was unreasonable and/or procedurally unfair where the applicant’s past support of the LTTE (claimed under duress) and sponsor ineligibility were in play.
Facts: Sri Lankan applicant acknowledged providing cooking/first-aid support to the LTTE in 1993–94 and paying a salary “tax” 1998–2006, asserting duress. Married a Canadian in 2006; two Canadian-citizen daughters. The officer also found the spouse remained ineligible to sponsor due to an unpaid default from a previous sponsorship.
Court Findings: No reviewable error and no breach of fairness were established on the record. The sponsor’s continuing ineligibility independently supported the outcome.
Outcome: Adjournment request denied; JR dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights (i) how historic, even low-level support to a listed terrorist entity can ground refusal notwithstanding duress claims; and (ii) the practical significance of sponsor eligibility as an independent barrier.
Issue: Whether refusal of inland spousal PR under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class and the Spousal Public Policy was reasonable where the applicant had earlier used a fraudulent U.S. passport and misrepresented identity/history.
Facts: Entered Canada in 2010 using a false U.S. passport; refugee claim accepted; later misrepresentation uncovered (identity, undisclosed U.S. residence/conviction), PR-protected-person application refused in 2014 and RPD status later vacated. A 2021 inland spousal PR was filed under the Spousal Public Policy.
Court Findings: The policy expressly excludes persons who used fraudulent/ improperly obtained documents to enter Canada and then relied on them to obtain status where the document was not surrendered/seized on arrival; the officer could not ignore eligibility requirements. Refusal was reasonable.
Outcome: JR dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies the limits of the Spousal Public Policy, fraudulent entry and subsequent reliance on that fraud to secure status squarely engage the policy’s exclusion.
IMM 1444: Application for Criminal Rehabilitation
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.