Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) predicts that Canada’s population growth will remain flat in 2026, marking the second consecutive year of zero growth. This trend is primarily driven by significant cuts to non-permanent resident admissions under the federal Immigration Levels Plan, including a reduction in temporary work and student visas from approximately 674,000 in 2025 to 385,000 this year. While the government aims to admit 380,000 permanent residents annually through 2028 and has introduced one-time programs to fast-track residency for 148,000 individuals, the PBO expects the outflow of non-permanent residents, estimated at 385,000 people this year, to offset any gains. Although the population is projected to see a slight 0.3% increase in 2027, the PBO anticipates it will eventually stabilize at a medium-term annual growth rate of approximately 0.8%.
A survey of 48 newcomer service agencies in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) reveals that 44% of respondents anticipate program closures, while 56% expect significant disruptions due to declining federal funding. These cuts stem from a three-year, $317.3 million reduction in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) budget that began in 2024, coupled with a federal mandate for all departments to find 15% savings. As settlement funding is tied to projected permanent resident arrivals, which the government is reducing to 380,000 this year—agencies are facing smaller budgets despite a 70% increase in demand since 2020. The funding shortfall is expected to result in roughly 310 job losses by 2028, specifically impacting critical services like high-level language training, which can lead to further challenges for newcomers regarding employment and housing stability.
On February 26, 2026, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) laid charges against Camping Havana Resort (9267-1551 Québec Inc.), its directors Ariane and Dominic Perrier, and employee Oscar Fuentes Labrada for the unauthorized hiring of 21 foreign workers. Triggered by a public tip in December 2022, the investigation uncovered offenses that took place between May 2022 and April 2024. The directors are charged with violating the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), while the employee faces additional charges for inducing and encouraging unauthorized work. All parties are summoned to appear at the Granby courthouse on March 26, 2026.
(Source)
As of February 26, 2026, the BC Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP) is participating in the annual Fraud Prevention Month campaign to increase public awareness regarding scams. This year’s focus is specifically on helping both employers and prospective immigrants identify, avoid, and report immigration-related fraud. To support this initiative, the BC PNP has provided resources including a dedicated fraud awareness page, a downloadable brochure, and an interactive quiz to help individuals test their knowledge.
(Source)
On February 23, 2026, the Government of Saskatchewan announced that charges were laid against Rodney Sidloski for multiple offenses involving two foreign workers. The alleged incidents occurred between May 2022 and August 2024 at the HELP International Shelterbelt Center, a tree farm near Weyburn. Sidloski faces charges under The Foreign Worker Recruitment and Immigration Services Act (FWRISA) and The Immigration Services Act (ISA) for producing false payroll records, misrepresenting employment terms, and exploiting the trust or lack of experience of the foreign nationals. The Ministry of Immigration and Career Training’s Program Compliance Branch, which led the investigation, continues to encourage anyone with concerns about immigration or recruitment violations to contact them confidentially.
(Source)
On February 24, 2026, the Government of Canada introduced two new five-year regional pilot programs: the Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP) and the Francophone Community Immigration Pilot (FCIP). These initiatives are designed to help smaller rural, northern, and Francophone communities attract and retain skilled workers to support local economic development. Under these pilots, eligible candidates can apply for an employer-specific work permit (code C15) valid for up to two years. Furthermore, spouses and common-law partners of the principal applicants are eligible for open work permits (code C17), and dependent children may also obtain open work permits (code C49), all typically valid for a two-year period.
(Source)
On February 24, 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) updated the general guidelines for the Significant Benefit to Canada category (administrative code C10). These instructions have been reorganized and clarified to provide IRCC staff with more specific guidance regarding when a foreign national’s employment may generate or maintain significant economic, social, or cultural benefits for Canadian citizens or permanent residents. The update aims to offer clearer criteria for stakeholders on the application of this category within the International Mobility Program.
(Source)
On February 25, 2026, the Government of Canada updated the operational instructions for the International Mobility Program to streamline the processing of work permits for specialized track maintenance workers, including rail grinder operators and rail welders. These changes were designed to enhance readability and predictability by organizing content into clear sections like eligibility, documentary evidence, and application assessment. Additionally, the update provides immigration officers with detailed procedures for issuing permits in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) and includes essential links regarding validity periods, refusal protocols, and handling discrepancies in employment offers.
(Source)
On February 23, 2026, the Government of Canada updated the program delivery instructions for the Joint Assistance Sponsorship (JAS) program. This program is a collaborative effort between sponsoring groups and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to support refugees with special needs who may face a more challenging or prolonged integration process. The updated guidelines provide IRCC officers with more comprehensive and detailed instructions to manage these unique sponsorship undertakings effectively.
(Source)
Issue: Whether a refusal of a permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds was procedurally unfair due to a deficient Certified Tribunal Record (CTR).
Facts: Mrs. Begum, a 74-year-old citizen of Fiji, applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds, citing the need for ongoing post-kidney transplant care in Canada that she claimed was unavailable in Fiji. The application was refused because the Officer found insufficient evidence that such treatment was unavailable in Fiji. During judicial review, it was discovered that at least four documents submitted by the Applicants, including a letter from their family physician supporting their medical claims, were missing from the CTR.
Court Findings: The Court found the case fell within the “scenario two” of Togtokh, where documents known to have been submitted are missing from the CTR, making it unclear if the decision-maker actually considered them. The Court ruled that it cannot speculate on what the Officer’s decision would have been had they considered the missing medical evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the decision was set aside, and the matter was returned for redetermination by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that a deficient CTR containing missing evidence submitted by an applicant constitutes a breach of procedural fairness, as the Court cannot properly review the reasonableness of a decision if the record of what was before the decision-maker is incomplete.
Issue: Is the return of a sponsorship application for “incompleteness” justiciable, and was the decision to return this specific application reasonable?
Facts: The Applicant applied to sponsor her parents under the 2024 Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). IRCC returned the application as incomplete, claiming a dependant’s resume was missing information. The Respondent argued this “return” was non-justiciable (not subject to court review).
Court Findings: The Court held the matter was justiciable because the return affected the Applicants’ statutory right to have their application processed and caused significant prejudice, as the PGP program was now closed. On the merits, the Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer provided no explanation as to how the resume was incomplete, leaving the Applicant to guess at the deficiency.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the decision was set aside for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that IRCC decisions to reject applications for incompleteness are subject to judicial review and must meet the standards of transparency and intelligibility by clearly explaining the alleged deficiency.
Issue: Whether an 85-month delay in processing a Québec Investor permanent resident application warranted an order of mandamus.
Facts: The Applicants applied in 2018. Processing stretched to over 72 months beyond the standard 46-month window. The delay was primarily due to outstanding security screenings regarding the Principal Applicant’s past compulsory military service in the IRGC, which Canada designated a terrorist group in 2024, years after the application was filed.
Court Findings: The Court found the delay in conducting security checks was unexplained and unreasonable up until late 2025. While the Court could not order a final decision on the entire application due to the Québec program’s strict quota system (to avoid “queue-jumping”), it found the Minister had a duty to complete the admissibility check.
Outcome: Mandamus granted in part; the Minister was ordered to decide on admissibility within 90 days and provide the Applicants with their exact position in the processing queue.
Why This Case is Important: It establishes that while courts are wary of disrupting quota-based immigration queues, they will intervene to compel action on specific components (like security checks) when an unexplained delay causes significant prejudice to the applicant.
Issue: Did the Officer fetter their discretion by insisting on a specific financial document (a bank attestation) while ignoring other relevant evidence?
Facts: Next Alutech applied for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) to hire foreign workers. The Officer requested an attestation from a financial institution to prove the company could pay the workers. The company’s bank refused to provide the letter in the specific format IRCC wanted due to legal risks. The company instead provided bank statements, invoices, and purchase orders, but the Officer refused the application solely because the bank attestation was missing.
Court Findings: The Court found the Officer fettered their discretion by focusing only on the missing bank attestation. Regulations and guidelines allow for a “broad range” of alternative financial information, which the Officer failed to consider.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the decisions were quashed and remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights that administrative officers cannot treat “optional” guidelines as mandatory requirements; they must consider all relevant evidence provided by an applicant rather than fixating on a single preferred document.
Issue: Was the refusal of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) unreasonable for failing to consider “pull” factors back to the home country?
Facts: The Applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for a TRV to visit his sister-in-law in Canada for three weeks. The Officer refused the visa, claiming the Applicant had insufficient ties to Iran and insufficient funds. The Applicant had provided evidence that he and his wife were the primary caregivers for his paraplegic father-in-law in Iran.
Court Findings: The decision was found unreasonable because the Officer failed to engage with the evidence regarding the father-in-law. This was a critical “pull” factor that would motivate the Applicant to leave Canada. The Court also questioned the finding on funds, noting the Officer ignored a support letter from the Canadian host.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the decision was set aside.
Why This Case is Important: It emphasizes that TRV officers must show “actual engagement” with the specific situation of an applicant, particularly evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the applicant will not leave Canada.
Issue: Was the return of a permanent residence application as “incomplete” reasonable when a dependant was omitted from one form but included in another?
Facts: The Applicant applied under the Agri-Food Pilot Program. He omitted his spouse’s biological son from form IMM 0008, thinking he only needed to list family members he intended to sponsor immediately. He did, however, list the child on form IMM 5406. IRCC returned the application as incomplete.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. Regulations require applicants to use prescribed forms and provide details for all family members, regardless of whether they are accompanying the applicant. Since form IMM 5406 did not capture all the required data points (like nationality) requested in IMM 0008, the application was technically incomplete.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It serves as a warning that the onus is strictly on the applicant to provide a “complete” application; officers have no duty to alert applicants to errors or allow them to correct omissions before returning an application.
Issue: Was the refusal of a TRV reasonable when the applicant failed to provide the specific duration of bank statements requested in the guidelines?
Facts: The Applicants (a father and daughter from India) applied for a TRV to visit family in Alberta. Visa office requirements stipulated six months of bank statements; the Applicants provided only three. The visa was refused based on insufficient financial information.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. Failure to comply with specific documentation requirements in visa office guidelines is a valid basis for refusal, as it prevents the officer from verifying the provenance of funds.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It reaffirms that applicants must “put their best foot forward” and that officers are not required to request missing information if an applicant fails to meet the evidentiary burden at the outset.
Issue: Did the Officer unreasonably refuse a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for a child intended for adoption?
Facts: A same-sex couple (refugees from Indonesia living in Canada) sought to adopt Asher, a child in Indonesia. Because Indonesia prohibits adoption by same-sex couples and non-residents, they could not obtain a legal adoption order. They applied for a TRP for Asher to bring him to Canada. The Officer refused, stating the situation should be assessed through “proper permanent immigration” channels to ensure no child trafficking was involved.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. The Officer did not “fetter” discretion but rather decided that the safeguards of the permanent residence/sponsorship process (which include trafficking checks) were more appropriate for an intercountry adoption than the TRP process. The child was currently well-cared for in Indonesia, so there was no urgent need to bypass standard procedures.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that in cases involving intercountry adoption, the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) includes ensuring the legal safeguards of the standard immigration process are met to prevent exploitation and trafficking.
Issue: Does a 46-month delay in processing a Start-Up Visa (SUV) application warrant a writ of mandamus?
Facts: The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the SUV Program in 2021. He satisfied all assessments by 2025, but a final decision was pending. IRCC had implemented new Ministerial Instructions in 2024 and 2025 that prioritized certain applications (e.g., those with venture capital backing) over others. The Applicant did not meet the priority criteria.
Court Findings: Mandamus was not warranted because the delay was justified. The Minister has the legal authority to set processing priorities via Ministerial Instructions to manage high application volumes and meet immigration levels. The Applicant’s file was simply waiting its turn in a non-prioritized queue.
Outcome: Application for mandamus dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It validates the Minister’s power to retroactively prioritize immigration applications through Ministerial Instructions, and confirms that such policy-driven delays are “satisfactory justifications” that prevent courts from ordering mandamus.
The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.
For comprehensive legal analysis or strategic case support, contact Greenberg Hameed PC.
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.