Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
The Toronto Star reports on Canoo, an app run by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship that gives new permanent residents (first 5 years) and new citizens (first year) free access to 1,400+ cultural attractions and national parks, plus select discounts (e.g., travel and events), to help newcomers explore Canada and build a sense of connection. The article links this type of “belonging” support to retention pressures, noting ICC data that about 1 in 5 immigrants leave Canada within 25 years, and highlighting ICC’s finding that optimism and belonging are strongly associated with staying long term.
Toronto Star reports that recent federal cuts to temporary resident admissions and tighter pathways to permanent residency are adding pressure on Canada’s restaurant sector, which already relies heavily on newcomers for staffing. Restaurant operators and Restaurants Canada warn the changes could deepen labour shortages (the association estimates an additional 50,000-worker shortfall, with vacancies nearing 150,000 by 2027) and raise training/retention costs at a time when many restaurants are financially strained (Restaurants Canada says about 40% are operating at a loss or barely breaking even).
IRCC updated its program delivery instructions for CUSMA business visitors (who may be authorized to work in Canada without a work permit under IRPR R186(a)). The update clarifies “after-sales service” to expand what “purchase” refers to in this context.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its instructions on study permits for prerequisite programs to clarify validity periods. Instead of being issued for the duration of the program plus 1 year, study permits for prerequisite programs are now issued for the duration of the program plus 90 days. IRCC states this aligns with regulatory amendments made in November 2024.
(Source)
IRCC refreshed its IEC instructions to tighten operational guidance (ports of entry processing by Canada Border Services Agency officers, medical exams, dependants, passport validity, police certificates, and work permit issuance/corrections in Global Case Management System). The update also includes eligibility/technical changes, including removal of Ukraine and Mexico from the eligible country list and other country-specific clarifications.
(Source)
As of January 1, 2026, no new parent/grandparent sponsorship applications for permanent resident visa applications will be accepted for processing until further instructions are issued.
(Source)
Issue: Whether a Minister’s delegate reasonably and fairly revoked Canadian citizenship for misrepresentation under the post-2018 revocation regime, including (1) who bears the burden of proving misrepresentation, (2) whether procedural fairness required an oral hearing and adequate disclosure, and (3) whether a prolonged delay constituted abuse of process warranting a stay.
Facts: The Applicant became a permanent resident in 2003 and a Canadian citizen in 2007, declaring certain absences. In 2014, CBSA received a tip about suspected citizenship fraud schemes connected to services allegedly used by the Applicant’s husband; IRCC investigated and located a LinkedIn profile suggesting the Applicant was continuously employed in Kuwait (2002–2009). An Embassy analyst verified employment with the employer, later affirmed by a CBSA liaison verification. Despite the investigation completing in 2014, IRCC did not start revocation steps until 2023 (RFL) and later issued a 2024 notification letter alleging misrepresentation. The Applicant responded, explaining the LinkedIn profile was not strictly factual, and that flexible maternity/unpaid leave policies allowed her to remain in Canada during pregnancy/breastfeeding and for pharmacy exams; she also pointed to record-retention limits affecting old documents. A delegate revoked her citizenship on November 6, 2024, giving little weight to hardship and rejecting delay prejudice arguments.
Court Findings:
Outcome: Judicial review granted; revocation decision set aside; revocation proceedings permanently stayed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: This is a significant citizenship revocation decision clarifying that the Minister carries the burden to prove misrepresentation under the current regime and that decision-makers cannot substitute “lack of corroboration” for proof. It also reinforces that where credibility is determinative, procedural fairness may require an oral hearing, and that non-disclosure of key investigative materials can breach fairness. Finally, it shows that extreme, unexplained delay in revocation proceedings can amount to abuse of process and justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay.
Issue: Whether a work permit refusal was reasonable where the officer concluded the Applicant was not a genuine worker / would not leave Canada, based on an asserted inconsistency between the Applicant’s medical leave and the timing of an LMIA and work permit plan, and where medical/explanatory evidence was provided.
Facts: The Applicant, a 26-year-old Indian citizen, came to Canada as a student in 2019. In August 2022 he was hospitalized and had a medical note recommending time off; the school later retroactively approved an authorized leave (Sept–Dec 2022). He did not resume studies in January 2023 and later reported a blood clot. He applied for a work permit and returned to India in April 2023 while that first application was pending (later refused). In February 2024, he applied again for an employer-specific work permit supported by an employment contract (January 2024) and a positive LMIA that the employer had submitted in July 2022. After a PFL, he provided transcripts, leave approval, hospitalization evidence, and prescriptions. The officer refused, finding the purpose inconsistent with a temporary stay and characterizing him as not a genuine worker, relying in GCMS on an apparent timeline concern (LMIA timing “coincides” with medical leave).
Court Findings: The Court found the refusal unreasonable because the officer misapprehended key dates and evidenceand did not justify the adverse conclusion in light of the record. In particular, the LMIA submission (July 2022) preceded the hospitalization, and the employment contract was signed much later; relying on the LMIA submission date as if it demonstrated opportunism during medical leave was not justified on the evidence. The officer also failed to grapple with the Applicant’s explanatory medical/history evidence (including the January–April 2023 period). These were central errors underpinning the “not a genuine worker” finding. The Court allowed the JR without deciding procedural fairness.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed; refusal set aside; matter remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: This decision reinforces that even in high-volume temporary residence/work permit decisions with brief reasons, officers must engage with key evidence and maintain a rational, contemporaneous chain of reasoning. Where the record clearly contradicts the officer’s core timeline/credibility inference, the reasons must still “add up,” and material misapprehensions of dates and medical context can render a refusal unreasonable.
Issue: Whether the College acted outside its authority or unfairly by refusing to exempt a new Class L3 (RCIC-IRB) licensee from completing the New Licensee Mentoring Program (NLMP), and by maintaining NLMP as a licensing condition where the program intake was not initially available.
Facts: The Applicant is an Ontario licensed paralegal and RCIC who obtained a Class L3 (RCIC-IRB) licence through Queen’s University’s Graduate Diploma pathway. Her October 13, 2023 Letter of Authority issued an L3 licence on the condition she complete the NLMP, requiring completion within “12 months or within the first two available intakes, whichever is greater.” The NLMP was not yet available when she was licensed, but the College later provided enrollment instructions in February 2025 for a March 2025 session. The Applicant requested a waiver/exemption, arguing the requirement was effectively impossible to satisfy due to unavailability and that the College imposed an unauthorized timing restriction. The College denied the exemption request, stating NLMP is mandatory for all licensees receiving a Letter of Authority on or after July 1, 2022, and that the College does not grant exceptions. The Applicant sought judicial review and wide relief (including orders for an unrestricted licence and injunctive/stay relief).
Court Findings:
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed; costs of $1,500 awarded to the College (fixed), noting the Applicant was self-represented.
Why This Case is Important: This decision confirms the College’s broad authority to impose and enforce post-licensing professional requirements (like NLMP) as conditions/restrictions on RCIC licensure in furtherance of its public-interest mandate. It also signals that informal exemption/waiver requests in this regulatory context attract a relatively low procedural fairness content, and that brief reasons can be upheld when the rationale is clear in light of the regulatory scheme and surrounding correspondence.
Issue: Whether a non-party (identified as an alleged “agent of persecution”) has standing under the Federal Courts Act to seek judicial review—and a stay—of an RPD decision granting refugee protection to other individuals (his children and their mother).
Facts: The Applicant, a Texas resident and self-represented, sought authorization to pursue judicial review under IRPA s. 72 of an RPD decision dated June 4, 2025, which granted refugee status to his two children and their mother. He was not a party before the RPD, but appears to have been identified in that proceeding as the alleged persecutor. He filed late (learning of the decision June 10, filing August 8) and also sought a stay. Parallel proceedings in Ontario courts involving the Hague Convention were referenced, but details were limited. The Respondent moved to strike for lack of standing. The Applicant disclosed that he used AI in drafting parts of his materials but did not specify which parts.
Court Findings:
Outcome: Application for leave/judicial review struck for lack of standing; no costs sought or awarded; stay request had no object.
Why This Case is Important: This decision is a clear reminder that refugee determinations are primarily between the claimant(s) and the Minister, and that third parties—especially alleged persecutors—will generally lack standing unless they can show the decision directly affects their legal rights or obligations. It also illustrates the Court’s willingness to dispose of such applications early via a motion to strike where standing is plainly absent.
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.