Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Statistics Canada reports Canada’s largest quarterly population decline on record: in Q3 2025 (July 1 to Oct. 1), the population fell by 76,068 to 41,575,585 (-0.2%), with the drop driven primarily by fewer non-permanent residents, especially international students. Ontario recorded its biggest decline on record (almost 67,000 people), and StatCan’s release also notes declines of 73,682 in study permit holders and 67,616 in work-and-study permit holders, while asylum claimant/protected person groups increased by 7,324 and permanent immigration remained stable; economists cited in the piece suggest the immediate impact may be felt most in housing (especially rentals), with mixed views on longer-term economic effects.
Canada’s long-standing public consensus that immigration is a net positive is fraying, with polling and an IRCC phone survey (Nov. 2024) showing about half of Canadians believe “too many” immigrants are coming. The article links this shift to post-pandemic population growth alongside housing/cost-of-living pressures, and notes a parallel rise in police-reported hate crimes, including Statistics Canada data showing a 227% increase in incidents targeting South Asian people from 2019 to 2023. Immigration Minister Lena Diab says the government is aiming to bring immigration “back into sustainability,” pointing to reduced future intake targets, while researchers and pollsters warn anti-immigrant sentiment remains elevated and is being amplified by economic insecurity and online discourse.
Ontario’s 2026 international student application spots (PALs) will go overwhelmingly to public institutions, 96% to public colleges and universities and 4% to private universities and language schools, amid a sharp federal cut that gives Ontario 104,780 PALs, translating to a maximum of 70,074 study permits (a 42% decrease from 2025). The article notes that master’s and doctoral students at public universities do not require PALs (though they still count toward the overall cap), and highlights sector concerns about major revenue losses and program sustainability, with universities and colleges warning the reductions will deepen financial pressures and affect talent development and training capacity.
Ministerial Instructions issued on December 20, 2025, set the annual intake to zero for new permanent residence applications under both the Start-Up Business Class and the Self-Employed Persons Class, effective January 1, 2026.
This means that, as of 2026, no new PR applications will be accepted under these business immigration streams. However, a narrow exception exists for Start-Up Visa applications that are supported by a qualifying commitment certificate issued before 12:00 a.m. (EST) on January 1, 2026. Applications not meeting this condition will be returned and fees refunded.
The new instructions also introduce priority processing tiers for Start-Up Visa applications already in the system, giving precedence to those where a team member holds a valid Start-Up Visa work permit and the commitment certificate comes from a recognized venture capital fund, angel investor group, or designated business incubator that meets updated compliance requirements.
These measures reflect IRCC’s effort to manage backlogs and strengthen program integrity, ensuring that processing resources focus on high-quality, investment-ready projects while preparing for a potential redesign of Canada’s entrepreneur and self-employed pathways.
Canada has formally introduced a nationwide study permit cap for the 2026 calendar year, limiting the number of study permit applications accepted for processing to 309,670. Each province and territory will be allocated a portion of this total, based on population and other considerations.
Starting January 1, 2026, most new study permit applications will also need to include a provincial or territorial attestation letter confirming that the application fits within the region’s allocation. Applications filed without an attestation letter (where one is required) will not be accepted for processing, and the application fee will be refunded.
Some applicants are exempt, such as those applying for study permit extensions, primary and secondary students, exchange program participants, and certain master’s or PhD students at public designated learning institutions (DLIs). This new system effectively links study permit issuance to provincial quotas, marking one of the most significant administrative shifts in Canada’s international education framework.
(Source)
The federal government has announced that, effective March 31, 2026, it will no longer accept new permanent residence applications under the Home Care Worker Immigration (Child Care) and Home Care Worker Immigration (Home Support) classes. The annual intake for both programs has been set to zero, and this change will apply to applications received on or after that date.
Applications already submitted before March 31, 2026 will continue to be processed normally, but any received after that date will be returned unprocessed, with fees refunded. The instructions also confirm that any humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) requests linked to these classes and submitted from outside Canada will not be processed.
This measure signals the federal government’s intention to pause new intake while continuing to finalize existing files, possibly paving the way for redesigned caregiver pathways in the future.
A Governor in Council remission order forgives uncollected CPI-based increases to five inadmissibility-related fees under the IRPR for the period December 1, 2019 to November 30, 2023, including ARC, rehabilitation, restoration, and TRP fees, deeming recovery unreasonable.
(Source)
Bill C-3 (2025) is now in force (as of December 15, 2025), expanding citizenship by descent for people born before that date who would have been citizens but for the first-generation limit or other outdated rules (they can now apply for proof of citizenship), and creating a forward-looking rule that lets a Canadian parent who was born/adopted abroad pass citizenship to a child born/adopted abroad if the parent can show 3 years of physical presence in Canada before the child’s birth/adoption.
(Source)
IRCC announced temporary PRRA access changes for Iranian nationals due to deteriorating human rights conditions in Iran following the escalation of hostilities in June 2025: people from Iran who received a final negative refugee decision (IRB or Federal Court) between December 20, 2024 and December 19, 2025 may now apply for a PRRA without the usual 12-month bar, and some whose PRRA was refused in that period may be eligible to seek a secondary PRRA; however, eligibility to apply does not guarantee a positive outcome, cases will still be assessed individually (including possible “restricted PRRA” limits for certain inadmissibility/exclusion situations), and those receiving a final negative decision after December 19, 2025 remain subject to the normal 12-month waiting period.
(Source)
IRCC updated its program delivery instructions for “Essential workers for the production stage of television and film” under the International Mobility Program (R205(a), exemption code C14) on December 16, 2025, refreshing the page structure and guidance to align with the IMP’s preferred format and modernizing language/links. The update also clarifies and reorganizes key officer-facing sections covering where applications may be submitted, eligibility, documentary evidence, how applications should be assessed, and the approval/refusal decision framework (including references to prior updates).
(Source)
IRCC updated its program delivery instructions for the permanent residence pathways for Hong Kong residents on December 18, 2025, tightening how Stream B applicants’ Canadian work experience is calculated: the principal applicant must now show at least 1,560 hours of authorized, paid Canadian work (full-time or part-time, any skill level) within the 3 years before IRCC receives the PR application, and must also have held a Canadian work permit for at least 1 year within that same 3-year period.
(Source)
IRCC issued a program delivery update on December 19, 2025 for Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) that apply to foreign nationals who were in state care, stating the guidance has been refreshed with clarifying language (i.e., a clarification/wording update rather than a new eligibility expansion), and directing officers and stakeholders to the updated operational instructions for assessing TRP requests in this specific context.
(Source)
B.C. posted two key allocation updates for the BC Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP): for 2026, IRCC has set B.C.’s nomination allocation at 5,254 (down from B.C.’s request of 9,000), and the province says it will keep engaging IRCC while it decides how to deploy this limited number and will publish 2026 priorities in the new year; for 2025, the BC PNP received an additional 960 nominations, bringing the total 2025 allocation to 6,214, which B.C. is applying to its April 14, 2025 priorities (including healthcare professionals, entrepreneurs, and high economic impact candidates) and to process some waitlisted International Post-Graduate (IPG) files, with the program expecting to use its full 2025 allocation by December 31, 2025.
(Source)
Ontario’s Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) announced that it has reached its 2025 nomination allocation, issuing a total of 10,750 nominations across all streams this year. The OINP confirms it will continue accepting and considering both new applications and those already submitted, but they will be processed under the 2026 nomination allocation. Applicants are directed to check the most up-to-date status by logging into their account through the OINP e-Filing portal.
(Source)
Ontario says it will prioritize Provincial Attestation Letters (PALs) for programs tied to in-demand jobs as it responds to a further federal reduction in international student permits for 2026. For 2026, Ontario is allocated 104,780 PALs, capped at 70,074 study permits for students intending to study at Ontario postsecondary institutions—described as a 42% reduction from 2025 and the third straight annual cut. Ontario also notes that starting in 2026, master’s and doctoral students at publicly assisted colleges and universities won’t need a PAL, but will still count toward Ontario’s overall cap; 96% of allocations go to publicly assisted colleges/universities and 4% to language schools, private universities, and other institutions, with Ontario continuing a practice of midyear voluntary returns of unused PALs to maximize usage.
(Source)
Québec has brought into force a two-year cap on the number of applications for temporary selection for studies (CAQ for studies) that can be received under its International Student Program, covering December 17, 2025, to December 16, 2027 (published in the Gazette officielle du Québec). The order sets maximums by institution/school service centre/school board for each of two one-year periods, maintains application levels for protected ACS, DCS, and universities at roughly 2024 levels, imposes significant reductions for parts of the private sector (including a 35% reduction for private vocational training vs 2024 applications and a 75% reduction for non-protected ACS vs 2024), and exempts CAQ renewal applications (same program, level, and institution) from counting toward institutional maximums; it also slightly increases maximums for some public French-language vocational programs in the regions to encourage French studies outside Montréal.
(Source)
Québec’s Ministry of Immigration, Francisation and Integration (MIFI) announced that its service fees will be indexed by 2.05% starting January 1, 2026, in line with Québec’s statutory annual indexation mechanism tied to CPI, and that the same 2.05% indexation applies to the financial-capacity scales used in Québec immigration programs. Québec also notes that the new financial-resource amounts for international students take effect January 1, 2026 and therefore are not indexed in 2026, because those amounts were significantly increased by regulatory changes on December 17, 2025.
(Source)
Issue: Whether the citizenship refusal, based on the applicant being short of the physical presence requirement, was unreasonable, including whether the officer’s reasons and calculations were adequate.
Facts: The Applicant applied for Canadian citizenship and was assessed as falling short of the physical presence threshold under the Citizenship Act. The decision turned on the officer’s physical presence calculation and the Applicant’s challenge to how the calculation was explained/communicated in the reasons.
Court Findings: The Court held the decision was reasonable, finding the officer’s approach and explanation of the physical presence assessment met the standard required on judicial review (even if more detailed reasoning could have been helpful).
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that, in citizenship matters, applicants must meet the statutory physical presence threshold on the record, and that courts will not intervene where the officer’s presence assessment is intelligible and justified on the evidence, even if the applicant disputes the arithmetic or would prefer a different presentation of the calculation.
Issue: Whether the impugned immigration decision (as framed by the Applicant) was reasonable, given alleged errors in how the evidence and applicable criteria were assessed.
Facts: The Applicant sought judicial review of a refusal decision. The reasons and record were challenged on the basis that key aspects of the evidence and/or governing criteria were not properly analyzed.
Court Findings: The Court found reviewable error in the decision-making process (including deficiencies in the reasoning and engagement with the record as identified in the reasons).
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker (as set out in the judgment).
Why This Case is Important: It is a practical authority on the Court’s expectation that officers must meaningfully grapple with central evidence and the operative legal test; where the reasons reveal a material gap in the analysis, the usual remedy is to set aside and remit.
Issue: Whether IRCC’s decision to return an application as incomplete was reasonable and/or justiciable on judicial review.
Facts: The application was returned by IRCC on “incompleteness” grounds. The Applicant challenged (1) whether this type of return decision could be reviewed by the Court, and (2) whether the incompleteness rationale was supportable on the record and governing completeness requirements.
Court Findings: The Court concluded the return decision was justiciable and that the decision was unreasonable on the record and applicable requirements (as analyzed in the reasons).
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed; the return decision was set aside and the matter was sent back for redetermination in accordance with the Court’s reasons.
Why This Case is Important: It is a strong reminder that “returned as incomplete” decisions are not immune from review, and that officers/delegates must apply completeness rules accurately—because an erroneous return can have serious downstream consequences (lost time, changed programs, missed deadlines).
Issue: Whether the Minister’s refusal decision under the public safety/national security framework at issue in this case was reasonable and procedurally fair (including the Applicant’s requests regarding process).
Facts: The Applicant sought judicial review of a public safety decision engaging inadmissibility/national security considerations. The challenge focused on the Minister’s assessment and the fairness of the process used to reach the decision.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the decision as reasonable and found no reviewable procedural unfairness on the record before it.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms the high deference courts often afford to public safety/national security decisions, and the importance of building a record that directly responds to the Minister’s concerns and the statutory criteria.
Issue: Whether “special reasons” justified a departure from the usual approach to costs in the context of this immigration judicial review proceeding.
Facts: Following the underlying litigation steps, the Court addressed costs and whether the circumstances met the threshold for “special reasons” (as used in the jurisprudence/rules governing costs in this context).
Court Findings: The Court found the threshold for “special reasons” was not met (as analyzed in the reasons), and addressed costs accordingly.
Outcome: Costs determined in accordance with the Court’s reasons; no “special reasons” award on the record presented.
Why This Case is Important: It is a helpful costs precedent: even where parties strongly disagree about conduct or merits, “special reasons” requires a high threshold, and the Court will insist on a clear evidentiary and legal basis before departing from the ordinary approach.
Issue: Whether IRCC unreasonably rejected a CEC Express Entry PR application as incomplete due to an allegedly non-compliant Chinese police certificate.
Facts: IRCC said the spouse’s police certificate was issued before her last residence in China, treating it as not covering the required period; the record showed the officer relied on an incorrect certificate date.
Court Findings: The officer’s date error was material and drove the “not acceptable / not covering” logic; reading the letter and GCMS together, the reasoning could not stand.
Outcome: JR granted; remitted for redetermination by a different officer; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Even “completeness” rejections can be set aside where a basic factual/date mistake underpins the conclusion on a mandatory document requirement.
Issue: Whether a study permit refusal (solely on “not satisfied he would leave Canada”) was reasonable.
Facts: Iranian applicant with an MSc was accepted to a Concordia MSc; the officer refused because the program seemed similar/expensive and allegedly didn’t improve prospects, therefore not a genuine temporary stay.
Court Findings: Unreasonable because the officer was silent on material “push/pull” evidence (ties to Iran, travel history, employer letter showing job/salary/promotion on return) that directly contradicted the conclusion.
Outcome: JR granted; remitted to a different decision-maker; no certified question; no costs.
Why This Case is Important: Officers can be brief, but must still address key contradictory evidence, especially when refusal rests only on “won’t leave Canada.”
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.