Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
The federal government is considering reducing the size of Canada’s public service by up to 60,000 jobs over five years, according to internal documents. This proposed cutback is part of a broader effort to streamline government spending and improve efficiency. The reductions would target roles made redundant by automation, digital transformation, and post-pandemic operational changes. While final decisions have not been made, unions have raised concerns about potential impacts on service delivery and job security. The government maintains that any reductions will be gradual and strategically managed. (Globe and Mail)
Ontario Premier Doug Ford and other provincial leaders have urged the federal government to allow provinces to issue work permits to refugee claimants amid delays in federal processing. However, legal and constitutional experts argue this proposal may be unconstitutional, as immigration remains under federal jurisdiction. Critics also warn that such a move could result in inconsistent protections and standards across provinces. The call reflects growing frustration over backlogs and the economic cost of keeping ready-to-work claimants idle. (Toronto Star)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) launched public consultations to gather feedback on Canada’s future immigration levels and mix, as part of its annual planning process. The input will inform the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, which sets targets for the number of permanent residents Canada aims to admit each year.
Key Focus Areas of the Consultation:
Who Was Consulted:
The consultation process aims to ensure Canada’s immigration system supports its economic recovery, population growth, and global commitments.
On July 23, 2025, the Government of Canada announced over $3.2 billion in funding over three years to more than 520 organizations (outside Quebec) to enhance newcomer economic and social integration and help address labour market shortages. These services will support immigrants in high-demand sectors such as healthcare and skilled trades by providing:
The funding will be regionally tailored and outcomes-focused, ensuring newcomers can enter the workforce quickly and contribute to economic growth. The initiative reflects the government’s commitment to building the strongest economy in the G7 by leveraging immigration.
The Government of Alberta strongly criticized the federal decision to accept 10,000 new applications under the Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship Program, citing concerns about increasing pressure on health care, education, housing, and social services. Alberta argued that federal immigration levels have surged without coordination or regard for provincial capacity, and warned that uncoordinated family reunification could strain already overwhelmed systems. The province reiterated its call for Ottawa to reduce total immigration to below 500,000 annually and to involve provinces in setting immigration targets to ensure sustainability and alignment with local realities.
As of July 19, 2025, Canada has resumed biometric collection services in Sudan. Applicants in Sudan who need to provide biometrics for their visa, permit, or permanent residence applications can now do so at the Canada Visa Application Centre (VAC) in Khartoum.
This update restores access to essential immigration processing services in the region, following a previous suspension due to instability.
On July 23, 2025, Quebec announced that as of July 30, 2025, it will prioritize processing permanent selection applications under the Regular Skilled Worker Program (PRTQ) for individuals already living in Quebec as temporary foreign workers or international students. The aim is to expedite decisions for applicants actively integrating into Quebec society.
By December 31, 2025, decisions will be made to accept, refuse, or issue intent-to-refuse notices. Final decisions on those notices will follow in early 2026, ensuring timely processing in accordance with procedural fairness standards.
On July 22, 2025, Quebec issued the first invitations under the new Skilled Worker Selection Program (PSTQ), targeting applicants in Stream 1 (highly qualified skills) and Stream 4 (exceptional talent). The focus was on individuals already residing in Quebec, especially those who speak French, have Quebec work experience or education, and are working in occupations addressing labour shortages, particularly in the regions.
Future invitation rounds will include all four program streams. Candidates must submit or update a declaration of interest in the Arrima portal to be considered. Invitations are based on a PSTQ scoring system, and selection criteria are publicly available.
Issue: Whether a mandamus should compel IRCC and GAC to process the applicant’s expression of interest under the Afghan resettlement public policy.
Facts: Mr. D submitted an expression of interest in August 2021 under the Afghan policy after years of service with Canadian Forces contractors. Unlike his peers, his file was never processed, nor referred to IRCC.
Court Findings: GAC had a public legal duty to assess the application. The applicant followed the process and was deprived of procedural fairness. Delay could not be used to shield discretion.
Outcome: Mandamus granted. GAC to process the application; IRCC to act accordingly. Costs of $15,000 awarded.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms enforceable procedural rights under public policy programs and imposes accountability for delays even in discretionary schemes.
Issue: Whether a mandamus should issue for delayed processing of a spousal PR application.
Facts: Ms. Emadi alleged delay in her PR application caused by the spouse’s unavailability.
Court Findings: Delay was attributable to the applicant and the file was not ripe for decision; thus, mandamus was not appropriate.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reiterates that mandamus is not available unless all preconditions are met and the delay is solely due to administrative inaction.
Issue: Whether a mandamus remains justiciable after a decision is made on the underlying PR application.
Facts: Mr. Khan filed mandamus for PR delay. Three days before hearing, IRCC issued a refusal on inadmissibility grounds.
Court Findings: Mandamus was moot as a final decision had been made. No reason to exercise discretion to hear the case.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that mandamus becomes moot once a decision is issued—even if refusal grounds are controversial.
Issue: Whether a refusal of a work permit based on English ability and ties to home country was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Li applied for a work permit with IELTS 5.5 and a BA in English. The Officer found insufficient English ability and weak ties.
Court Findings: The refusal on language grounds lacked reasonableness because the Officer failed to meaningfully assess the degree or IELTS results.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms duty to analyze submitted qualifications and avoid perfunctory dismissals.
Issue: Whether a refusal of a TFWP work permit based on English ability was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Patel submitted transcripts showing English courses and referenced studies in the UK. The Officer refused due to lack of language evidence.
Court Findings: Refusal was reasonable; evidence was minimal and did not establish job-readiness.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that officers may reject applications where evidence is insufficient, even if nominal indicators of qualification exist.
Issue: Whether refusal of a TRV due to financial concerns and intent to return was unreasonable or breached fairness.
Facts: Mr. Rahman was refused a TRV due to unclear source of funds and weak travel justification.
Court Findings: Decision was reasonable; no fairness breach arose. TRV decisions demand low procedural fairness.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces the low fairness standard in TRV applications and the applicant’s burden to clarify financial evidence.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a TRV was based on speculation and lacked reasonable analysis of financial and familial ties.
Facts: Mr. Li applied for a TRV supported by income documents and travel history. Refused on the basis of potential non-compliance.
Court Findings: Officer failed to address credible ties and gave cursory treatment to the financial documents.
Outcome: Application allowed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that TRV decisions must be based on clear and defensible reasoning—not speculation or boilerplate language.
Issue: Whether refusal of an H&C application failed to reasonably assess hardship and the best interests of the children (BIOC).
Facts: An Ethiopian-Italian family cited anti-Black racism in Italy and psychological harm. The Officer accepted their establishment but minimized hardship and BIOC.
Court Findings: Officer downplayed discrimination and ignored individualized evidence. Failed to separate BIOC from hardship.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted to a different decision-maker.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies the need for nuanced, individualized assessment of systemic racism and BIOC in H&C matters.
Issue: Whether IRCC breached procedural fairness by refusing PR on credibility concerns without providing a second opportunity to respond.
Facts: Mr. Asif’s PNP-based PR application was refused due to doubts about payroll records, despite prior responses to a procedural fairness letter.
Court Findings: New credibility concerns required fresh notice. Refusal without such notice breached fairness.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms duty to provide a new fairness letter when new credibility concerns emerge post-response.
Issue: Whether refusal of an H&C application was affected by incompetent representation and unaddressed evidence.
Facts: Ms. Bailey, a Jamaican victim of domestic violence, was poorly represented; key psychological and community support documents were not submitted.
Court Findings: Procedural fairness breach due to counsel’s incompetence. Officer failed to assess core issues of domestic violence.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights the Court’s readiness to remedy harm caused by ineffective assistance in immigration proceedings.
Issue: Whether the Officer’s refusal of an H&C application was unreasonable for disregarding establishment, hardship, and medical conditions.
Facts: Ms. Camero, a live-in caregiver in Canada for 16 years, cited long-term establishment and health issues.
Court Findings: The Officer failed to provide compassionate analysis and ignored or downplayed relevant hardship evidence.
Outcome: Application allowed; decision quashed.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that long-term presence, volunteerism, and hardship require holistic, compassionate consideration under Kanthasamy.
Issue: Whether refusal of H&C relief failed to assess a unique, long-term contribution and establishment.
Facts: Mr. Sosa worked in Canada for 22 years as a seasonal farm worker. His H&C application emphasized this service and sacrifice.
Court Findings: Officer’s reasoning was dismissive and ignored the cumulative impact of two decades of contribution.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Recognizes long-term seasonal workers’ unique contributions as potentially determinative in H&C cases.
Issue: Whether the Officer failed to consider key evidence in assessing BIOC in an H&C refusal.
Facts: Parents of two Canadian-born children submitted pediatric letters warning of trauma if children were removed.
Court Findings: Officer failed to address or consider these letters, rendering the decision unreasonable.
Outcome: Application allowed; remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that BIOC assessments must be robust, and ignoring expert or direct evidence renders decisions unreasonable.
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.