Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Ontario employers say the province’s decision to shut down the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program skilled trades stream over fraud concerns is worsening labour shortages, with some turning down projects due to reduced staffing. The Ministry cited falsified work-experience documentation in “a majority” of reviewed applications, while workers continue protests seeking reinstatement and opposition leaders argue the province, not Ottawa, controls the program.
Premier Doug Ford said he sympathizes with immigrant workers protesting after Ontario shut down the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program skilled trades stream over fraud concerns, and argued it is now “up to the federal government” to decide whether they can stay. The article notes opposition criticism that Ontario created the problem by cutting the stream without notice, while the Ministry of Labour says a review found a majority of applications contained falsified information and is proposing to consolidate Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program streams from eight to four.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada confirms that, as of March 11, 2025, language and field-of-study requirements for Post-Graduation Work Permit applicants who graduated from a non-university degree-granting program are the same as those for university graduates, and adds guidance on the November 1, 2024, changes. The update also clarifies that applicants who applied for a study permit before November 1, 2024, remain exempt from the field-of-study requirement (including where a study permit extension is filed on or after November 1, 2024), and clarifies the definition of “final academic session” for assessing maintained full-time status.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has updated instructions on methods of payment for immigration loans to add an online payment option.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada updates guidance to reflect June 16, 2024 ministerial instruction amendments, including reducing the “Gaining experience” work requirement from 12 months to 6 months, accepting work experience gained outside Canada, and accepting work experience gained up to 36 months before the application is made.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has updated these instructions mainly for structure and usability (including aligning with the preferred International Mobility Program format and updating language/links), and adds information on family members and assessing genuine relationships.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada updates the introduction and table of contents (including sections on place of application, eligibility, documentary evidence, assessment, final decision, approval, refusal, and previous updates), and makes formatting, language, and link updates to align with International Mobility Program style.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada updates formatting, language, and links to match International Mobility Program presentation standards, and adds additional information regarding refusals.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has updated instructions for paragraph 204(c) (T13) work permits, including how to issue work permits for multiple locations and how work permit eligibility applies to family members, alongside general text clean-up. The overview reiterates the three T13 categories: Significant Investment Projects, Exceptional or Unforeseen Events (such as natural disasters), and foreign nationals nominated by a province for permanent residence.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has issued operational guidance on temporary special measures for clients in Canada impacted by the crisis in the state of Palestine, in effect from August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026, and notes that prior instructions for the “crisis in Israel and Palestinian Territories” are now listed as expired.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is urging visitors to apply early for required immigration documents ahead of FIFA World Cup 26 matches in Toronto and Vancouver (June 11 to July 19, 2026), noting that most travellers will need a visa or an electronic travel authorization to travel to or transit through Canada. The release also emphasizes that having tickets does not guarantee approval or entry, and that border officers make the final decision on entry at arrival.
(Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced that a new Express Entry category for international doctors will issue invitations in early 2026 and will be aimed at physicians already in Canada with at least one year of Canadian work experience in an eligible occupation gained within the last three years. The measures also include reserving 5,000 federal admission spaces (in addition to Provincial Nominee Program allocations) for provinces and territories to nominate licensed doctors with job offers, with expedited 14-day work permit processing for nominated doctors while they await permanent residence.
(Source)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada announced $1.7 billion to launch the Canada Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative, with up to $1.7 billion over 12 years to attract and support more than 1,000 leading international and expatriate researchers, including Francophone researchers. The release describes four streams: the Canada Impact+ Research Chairs program ($1 billion over 12 years), Canada Impact+ Emerging Leaders ($120 million over 12 years), the Canada Impact+ Research Infrastructure Fund ($400 million over six years), and Canada Impact+ Research Training Awards ($133.6 million over three years).
(Source)
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit application connected to a Start-Up Visa context (including “essential/urgent reasons” and significant benefit considerations) was reasonable.
Facts: The Applicant sought a work permit in the context of a start-up business and argued their presence in Canada was required for business operations/progress.
Court Findings: The Court held the officer’s assessment of the record and the statutory/regulatory criteria was reasonable on the facts presented.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It illustrates the evidentiary burden in Start-Up Visa-related work permit requests: the record must demonstrate, concretely and contemporaneously, why the applicant’s presence is necessary and how the criteria are met.
Issue: Whether the Applicant met the criteria for mandamus requiring a decision on a delayed permanent residence application, and what timeline/costs were appropriate.
Facts: The Applicant’s permanent residence application in the Protected Persons/Convention Refugees in Canada Class had been in process for over six years. The Respondent’s prior explanation was outstanding security checks, and the Applicant was later advised he had passed the security assessment.
Court Findings: The Court found the mandamus criteria (per Apotex) were met, ordered a 30-day decision timeline given nothing remained outstanding, and found “special reasons” to award costs due to a late procedural fairness letter raising serious concerns that were resolved shortly thereafter.
Outcome: Mandamus granted; decision required within 30 days; costs awarded in the lump-sum amount of $8,550.
Why This Case is Important: It is a concise mandamus roadmap for prolonged protected-person processing delays, including when late-stage procedural fairness activity can support “special reasons” costs.
Issue: Whether the refusal of the Applicant’s restoration request was reasonable where the request was made outside the regulatory restoration window.
Facts: The Applicant’s temporary resident status expired. She sought restoration, but the request was made more than 90 days after the expiry of her status.
Court Findings: The Court held that the restoration framework requires the request to be made within 90 days after the loss of status, and the legislation/regulations do not provide discretion to extend that restoration period.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms the strictness of the restoration timeline and the limited ability (if any) of decision-makers (or the Court on review) to cure late restoration through discretion.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a temporary resident visa was reasonable, particularly on financial capacity/available assets.
Facts: The Applicants sought a temporary resident visa to visit Canada for a short trip. The officer refused, citing concerns about available assets/financial capacity for the trip.
Court Findings: The Court found the reasons did not justify the financial/asset conclusions drawn from the record and did not demonstrate a rational chain of analysis.
Outcome: Application for judicial review granted; refusal set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that visa refusals must engage meaningfully with the financial evidence on file and explain why the evidence is insufficient, not merely assert it.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class was reasonable, including the assessment of qualifying work experience and occupational duties.
Facts: The Applicant applied under the Canadian Experience Class and relied on employment evidence (including letters and pay documentation) to establish qualifying skilled work experience under the asserted National Occupational Classification code.
Court Findings: The Court held the officer’s assessment of the evidence (including whether the documented duties and supporting records established the claimed experience) was reasonable. The Court also rejected the procedural fairness argument in the circumstances, applying the “best foot forward” principle where the concerns arose from core program requirements.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It is a reminder that work-experience cases often turn on documentary precision: duties, role function, and corroboration must align clearly, and applicants may not get a fairness “second chance” where the deficiency is inherent in meeting the program criteria.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was reasonable, including whether the officer applied an improper “exceptionality” threshold, mishandled medical/psychological evidence, and relied on speculative “normal process” alternatives.
Facts: The Applicant is a 70-year-old Pakistani citizen and Super Visa holder. She had lived in Canada intermittently for years and continuously since May 2023, supported by her Canadian citizen children. Her evidence included serious mental health concerns supported by psychological reporting, and establishment/family factors.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable for (1) applying “exceptional/exceptionality” as a legal threshold, (2) misapprehending and minimizing the psychological report, and (3) relying on unjustified speculation that other immigration “pathways” were realistically available as an alternative basis to refuse.
Outcome: Application for judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It is a clear statement that humanitarian and compassionate decision-making cannot be converted into an “exceptionality” test, medical evidence must be characterized accurately, and “other avenues” cannot be invoked hypothetically without justification grounded in operational reality.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate application was reasonable where the officer failed to be “alert, alive and sensitive” to the best interests of the children directly affected.
Facts: The Applicant, a 71-year-old widow from India, had been living in Canada with her son’s family and two minor Canadian grandchildren since 2019. She applied for humanitarian and compassionate relief and relied on evidence about establishment, hardship on return, and the grandchildren’s best interests.
Court Findings: The officer’s reasoning adopted a hardship-type lens (focusing on whether the children would “suffer” or have “adequate care”) rather than determining what was in the children’s best interests from their perspective, and included speculative assumptions not grounded in the record.
Outcome: Application for judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that best-interests analysis must be child-centred and evidence-based, and that errors in the best interests of the child analysis can be determinative in humanitarian and compassionate judicial reviews.
Issue: Whether “special reasons” justified an award of costs in an immigration judicial review matter (where costs are not ordinarily granted).
Facts: The application for judicial review of the third pre-removal risk assessment refusal was granted on consent because the decision failed to consider risk of persecution under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The remaining dispute was costs, in the context of repeated similar errors across multiple pre-removal risk assessment decisions and judicial reviews.
Court Findings: The Court held that while a single error below is generally not “special reasons,” repetition of the same error across three decisions requiring multiple proceedings (plus the timing/progression of the litigation) could meet the high threshold.
Outcome: Costs awarded in a lump sum of $3,000 to the Applicant.
Why This Case is Important: It is a practical costs decision: it shows what type of repeated conduct and litigation history can meet the “special reasons” threshold in immigration judicial reviews.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a post-graduation work permit was reasonable where the Applicant did not maintain full-time studies for two semesters, and whether any discretion/exception applied.
Facts: The Applicant completed the program but studied part-time for the final two semesters; the record did not fit the exception typically limited to a final semester.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the officer’s interpretation/application of the full-time study requirement in the post-graduation work permit framework and found the refusal reasonable on the record.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that post-graduation work permit eligibility often turns on strict enrollment status compliance across semesters; “end-of-program” timing matters, and part-time studies outside recognized exceptions can be fatal.
Issue: Whether the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable on the definition/application of “dependent child” in a family sponsorship context.
Facts: The appeal involved an adult child and the statutory/regulatory dependent-child definition (including age and dependency criteria).
Court Findings: The Court upheld the Immigration Appeal Division’s approach to the dependent-child analysis on the record before it.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights the rigidity of the dependent-child framework in sponsorship matters and the importance of meeting the definition on the evidence (not by equitable considerations alone).
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.