Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
A January 17, 2026 Toronto Star report flags growing concerns that unscrupulous agents are exploiting the lead-up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup (hosted by Canada, Mexico and the U.S., with matches in Toronto and Vancouver) by misrepresenting a temporary IRCC public policy that only exempts FIFA-invited workers (with an official invitation letter, and limited to FIFA/affiliates/subcontractors) from certain work authorization requirements; the article describes online “packages” and coaching services encouraging applicants to present themselves as “fans,” including curating social media profiles, and warns that World Cup tickets do not guarantee visa approval and that IRCC says it is monitoring misinformation and using integrity/compliance measures to protect the immigration system as application volumes rise.
IRCC’s January 16, 2026 update notes that the Instrument of Designation and Delegation (IDD) was significantly reviewed and updated effective December 15, 2025, including expanded delegations and broader distribution of authorities across updated roles (for example, Director General, senior program officers, case processing agents, and locally engaged staff), updates tied to Designated Learning Institution (DLI) compliance responsibilities, and three new items added (authority for Resettlement Operations officers to refuse permanent resident visas where Quebec selection criteria are not met, reinstated authority for the Director General of the Migration Health Branch to designate countries requiring immigration medical exams under IRPR 30(2), and a split delegation for refugee claim eligibility decisions). The update also describes removals and role rationalization (removing obsolete roles, standardizing titles, consolidating delegations under the Service Delivery Sector, streamlining decision-making, and revising branch names to match IRCC’s current structure).
(Source)
IRCC’s January 16, 2026 program delivery update adds a new section to the “Assessment of an application for permanent residence” instructions that sets out the interview referral process for Family Class and Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada (SCLPC) permanent residence applications, including updated direction for overseas Family Class files where the applicant states they cannot attend an interview at the visa office because they are currently residing in Canada.
(Source)
On January 16, 2026, IRCC announced measures to help Ukrainians who applied under the Ukrainian family reunification pathway (launched in October 2023) and their family members maintain legal status in Canada while waiting for a permanent residence decision: eligible applicants will have until March 31, 2027 to apply from within Canada for a new open work permit, an extension of an existing work permit, a new study permit, or an extension or restoration of temporary resident status—and they may apply even without an acknowledgement of receipt for the permanent residence application; standard fees apply.
(Source)
IRCC’s January 13, 2026 program delivery update refreshes guidance for CUFTA intra-corporate transferees under IRPR R204(a) (LMIA-exempt categories F71 and F74) by updating language and hyperlinks, correcting internal references in the instructions (including correcting references from F75 to F74), and updating the related operational instructions for processing these work permit applications.
(Source)
IRCC’s January 12, 2026 program delivery update confirms the Francophone Community Immigration Pilot (FCIP) was launched on January 30, 2025 to increase French-speaking newcomer settlement in Francophone minority communities outside Quebec, supporting local economic development and helping restore/increase these communities’ demographic weight; it explains that each participating community is represented by a local economic development organization that will work with IRCC to identify labour gaps, designate trusted employers, and recommend candidates for permanent residence, and notes IRCC has begun training these organizations, with communities to publish their own timelines and details for when employers and prospective applicants can expect opportunities to apply.
(Source)
IRCC’s January 13, 2026 program delivery update confirms the Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP) was officially launched on January 30, 2025 to help rural communities address labour shortages and support local employers in finding needed workers; it explains that each selected community is represented by a local economic development organization that will work with IRCC to identify critical labour gaps, designate trusted employers, and recommend candidates for permanent residence, and notes IRCC has begun training these organizations, with communities expected to publish their own details and timelines for when employers and prospective applicants can anticipate opportunities to apply.
(Source)
On January 15, 2026, Saskatchewan announced that Jun Su has been charged under The Immigration Services Act, 2024 for allegedly providing immigration or recruitment services without a licence in or near Saskatoon between January 20, 2025 and July 4, 2025, the province says this is the first time such charges have been laid against an unlicensed consultant in Saskatchewan since the Act came into force on July 1, 2024 (replacing FWRISA) and highlights the Act as a major program-integrity framework with strong penalties; the release also directs individuals to contact Saskatchewan’s Program Compliance Branch to ask questions or file confidential complaints.
(Source)
On January 12, 2026, Yukon announced its 2026 Yukon Nominee Program (YNP) allocation is 282, and that employers must submit an online Expression of Interest (EOI) during one of two intake windows (January 19–30, 2026 and July 6–17, 2026); EOIs will be points-scored based on 2026 priorities and highest-scoring employers in each intake will be invited to apply, with additional points for employers who submitted an EOI in 2025 but were not invited. Yukon’s stated 2026 priorities include regulated health care professionals, employers in rural Yukon, and foreign nationals who have lived and worked in Yukon for at least one year, are Yukon University graduates, are Francophone/French-speaking, or received a Temporary Measure Letter of Support in 2024 or 2025; those who received a Temporary Measure Letter of Support in 2024/2025 do not need to submit an EOI and will be contacted with next steps.
(Source)
Issue: Whether the negative Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) decision under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, refusing a transport truck driver position, was reasonable and procedurally fair (including arguments about fettering and fairness).
Facts: The Applicant employer (also known as The North Transportation) sought an LMIA to hire a transport truck driver. In its recruitment, it advertised a requirement of 13+ years of experience and provided information about its trucking operations and fleet size. During processing, ESDC requested additional information (including documents about the number of trucks and drivers). The officer ultimately issued a negative LMIA, citing concerns including inconsistency about fleet size/need and whether the experience requirement and recruitment demonstrated a genuine need and adequate efforts to hire Canadians/permanent residents.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the decision as reasonable. It accepted that the officer could (i) assess the evidence and conclude the proven fleet size did not align with the employer’s asserted need for additional drivers, supporting a conclusion of surplus capacity; and (ii) conclude the 13+ years experience requirement was not reasonably justified as a bona fide occupational requirement and could undermine recruitment efforts. The Court also rejected procedural fairness and fettering arguments on the record, finding the employer had notice of the officer’s concerns through requests for additional information and that the officer applied the governing framework rather than treating guidance as binding law.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It confirms the deference courts give to ESDC’s LMIA assessments where the record supports concerns about (a) business need/surplus capacity and (b) recruitment criteria that appear inflated or not objectively justified—especially in trucking LMIA files.
Issue: Whether refusal of a Parent/Grandparent Super Visa was reasonable, including whether the officer meaningfully assessed the stated purpose of travel (supporting a son following a serious medical incident).
Facts: The Applicant (Pakistan) applied for a Super Visa to visit Canada temporarily to support his son’s recovery after a serious medical incident. The record included medical documentation, financial/property/business evidence, and support letters. The Applicant’s immigration history included prior Canadian applications and a prior Canadian finding of misrepresentation tied to a prolonged unauthorized U.S. overstay (with the inadmissibility period expired). The officer refused, concluding the Applicant had not met the burden to show a temporary stay and departure at the end of authorized status.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. It held the officer did not ignore the son’s medical circumstances and was entitled to weigh the full set of push/pull factors, including strong Canadian family ties and the Applicant’s prior non-compliance history. The Applicant’s arguments were characterized as seeking reweighing, which is not the Court’s role on reasonableness review.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that even compelling humanitarian/purpose evidence (including medical circumstances) may not overcome concerns arising from an applicant’s broader risk profile—particularly prior immigration non-compliance—where the officer’s reasons show they grappled with the core submissions.
Issue: Whether refusal of an outside-Canada work permit (supported by a positive LMIA and Québec CAQ) was reasonable and procedurally fair—particularly on language ability and finances.
Facts: The Applicant (Pakistan) applied from outside Canada for a work permit as an “ethnic food cook” for a restaurant in Laval, Québec. The job offer required verbal and written English. Although the file included some educational documentation, the officer concluded the materials did not adequately establish English ability (and the available transcripts suggested weak English performance). The officer also noted insufficient financial documentation and concluded the Applicant had not shown they would leave Canada at the end of the authorized period.
Court Findings: The Court found the refusal reasonable. It held that a positive LMIA/CAQ is relevant but does not replace the officer’s independent obligation to assess statutory requirements. On fairness, it confirmed the “best foot forward” principle and the limited procedural fairness owed in outside-Canada work permit applications; absent credibility concerns, the officer was not required to request missing documentation or provide an opportunity to respond before refusing.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that LMIA/CAQ support does not cure missing core eligibility evidence (notably language where the job requires it) and that applicants should not expect a “procedural fairness prompt” to fill evidentiary gaps in routine overseas work permit processing.
Issue: Whether refusal of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) was reasonable where the determinative concern was the absence of significant family ties outside Canada; and whether the Court could consider a statutory declaration that was not before the officer.
Facts: The Applicant (Iran), a 35-year-old single man, applied for a TRV to accompany his father to visit the Applicant’s sister (a Canadian citizen) in Canada. The application stated the Applicant’s mother would remain in Iran. The officer refused, citing the determinative concern: insufficient evidence of significant family ties outside Canada. In the judicial review record, the Applicant relied on a statutory declaration not contained in the Certified Tribunal Record; the officer’s affidavit explained the discrepancy. Applicant’s counsel also failed to appear at the hearing.
Court Findings: The Court proceeded in counsel’s absence and refused to consider the statutory declaration because it was not before the officer and exceptional circumstances were not established. On the merits, the Court held it was open to the officer to treat the lack of evidence about meaningful ties outside Canada as determinative, given the burden on TRV applicants to satisfy the officer they will leave Canada at the end of their stay.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (without costs).
Why This Case is Important: It highlights two practical points: (1) judicial review generally turns on the officer’s record (attempts to improve the record later face strict limits), and (2) “family ties” analysis can reasonably cut against an applicant where the evidence suggests key family ties are in Canada and the record is thin on binding ties abroad.
Issue: Whether IRCC acted unreasonably or unfairly in returning a Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP) application as incomplete (specifically relating to missing/incorrect information on IMM 5406 and completeness requirements), and whether such a return is reviewable.
Facts: The Applicant received an invitation to apply under the PGP and submitted the application. IRCC returned the application as incomplete due to issues with IMM 5406 (Additional Family Information), including missing information relating to a family member, and later sent a letter giving 30 days to correct deficiencies. The Applicant responded but IRCC still found the file incomplete and returned it. The Applicant argued the returned application should be treated as complete, that the missing information was minor/curable, and raised procedural fairness concerns.
Court Findings: The Court treated the matter as reviewable in the circumstances and upheld IRCC’s outcome. It emphasized that completeness checks are mandatory and that the onus is on applicants to provide complete and accurate forms within deadlines. The Court found no reviewable error in IRCC concluding the application remained incomplete on the record and did not accept that procedural fairness required further opportunities beyond what was provided.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It confirms the high stakes of PGP completeness screening: small errors or omissions on required forms (including IMM 5406) can be fatal, and courts will generally defer where IRCC applied clear completeness rules and the record supports the finding that deficiencies remained.
Issue: Whether a Minister’s Delegate reasonably confirmed a subsection 44(1) report and issued a one-year exclusion order against a visa-exempt traveller on the basis that she did not comply with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Facts: The Applicant (South Korea) sought entry as a visitor and was examined by CBSA. After the interview, a CBSA officer wrote a s.44(1) report recommending an exclusion order, which a Minister’s Delegate confirmed, issuing a one-year exclusion order. The Applicant argued the delegate’s conclusion was speculative and failed to reasonably assess the evidence relevant to temporary intent and compliance.
Court Findings: The Court found the delegate’s decision unreasonable. It held the delegate disregarded relevant evidence and based key conclusions on speculation rather than the record, failing to reasonably analyze whether the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized period and improperly treating certain circumstances as determinative without an adequate evidentiary foundation.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; exclusion order set aside and matter remitted for redetermination (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It is a useful authority on challenging removal/exclusion decisions where decision-makers infer “non-compliance” or permanent intent without a grounded analysis of the evidence, and it reinforces that even in summary immigration enforcement contexts, the reasoning must be tethered to the record.
Issue: Whether an officer’s refusal in an Afghan-related immigration pathway (including concerns arising from interview/interpretation and application content) was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Facts: The Applicant sought relief through an IRCC process connected to Afghanistan-related measures. The officer conducted an interview (with interpretation). The Applicant later challenged the refusal, alleging issues including interpretation problems, misunderstanding/miscommunication during the interview, and concerns about how information and forms were assessed.
Court Findings: The Court dismissed the application. It found no breach of procedural fairness on the interpretation/interview record and held that the officer’s conclusions were supported by the materials, including the Applicant’s responsibility for ensuring accurate information and the insufficiency of the evidence advanced to show an interview/translation failure that undermined the decision.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed (no costs).
Why This Case is Important: It illustrates the evidentiary burden for “interpreter/translation fairness” arguments: applicants must point to concrete, material errors tied to the decision—not general dissatisfaction with how an interview unfolded.
Issue: How the Court should dispose of a judicial review where the Respondent concedes a procedural fairness breach and moves for judgment, and whether punitive damages are available.
Facts: The Applicants sought judicial review of a visa decision. The Respondent brought a motion for judgment and conceded the officer’s decision did not meet the required standard of procedural fairness, rendering the underlying application moot. The Applicants opposed aspects of the motion and sought punitive damages (nominally $1.00).
Court Findings: The Court accepted the concession, held the fairness breach was reviewable error, and granted the motion in the interests of judicial economy—setting aside the decision and remitting for redetermination. It rejected punitive damages, finding no basis for them on the record.
Outcome: Respondent’s motion granted; decision set aside and remitted; no punitive damages; (no costs indicated beyond the disposition).
Why This Case is Important: It’s a practical template for “concession files”: when the Minister concedes procedural unfairness, the Court will typically move directly to set-aside/remittal, and damages (especially punitive damages) are not awarded absent a clear legal and factual foundation.
Issue: Whether refusal of a work permit supported by an LMIA was reasonable—particularly findings that the Applicant could not perform the job and would not leave Canada at the end of the authorized period.
Facts: The Applicant applied for an employer-specific work permit supported by an LMIA for an industrial sewing machine operator position (NOC 94132). The officer refused, stating they were not satisfied the Applicant could perform the work and not satisfied the Applicant would depart Canada after authorized stay. A central issue was the officer’s treatment of the Applicant’s work experience evidence (including skepticism due to lack of payslips/bank deposits).
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable. It held the officer’s reasoning effectively imposed requirements not found in the NOC/LMIA/legal framework and failed to explain why the Applicant’s experience evidence could not establish ability to perform the work. The Court also found the “will leave Canada” analysis unreasonable, including reliance on factors treated as determinative without adequate analysis and failure to engage with the Applicant’s circumstances in a justified way.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside and remitted for redetermination (no certified question).
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that “ability to perform the job” must be assessed against the actual occupational/LMIA context and the record, not by imposing extra-documentary proof demands, and that temporary intent reasoning must be explained, not assumed.
Issue: Whether refusal of an in-Canada spousal sponsorship application on genuineness grounds was reasonable and procedurally fair, including reliance on stereotypes and untested credibility findings.
Facts: The Applicant sought permanent residence through the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class, sponsored by his Canadian spouse. The couple provided relationship evidence and responded to an officer’s concerns letter with additional documentation. The officer refused, citing factors such as a 17-year age difference, a “speedy” relationship timeline, and perceived inconsistencies (including an internal inconsistency in the officer’s treatment of whether the sponsor’s mother learned of the relationship after the wedding versus being present at the wedding). The officer made credibility findings without conducting an interview.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable. It held that the officer’s reliance on age difference and the relationship timeline rested on unexplained assumptions/stereotypes and lacked a justified evidentiary foundation. The Court also found a material reasoning problem where the officer relied on mutually inconsistent inferences about the sponsor’s mother. Given the credibility-leaning conclusions, the record did not support the decisional path the officer took.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside and remitted (no costs; no certified question).
Why This Case is Important: It is a strong authority against stereotype-driven genuineness findings in spousal cases and confirms that where an officer’s refusal turns on credibility-type conclusions or internal inconsistencies, the reasoning must be coherent and grounded (and may require proper procedural steps).
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.