Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Quebec has paused new sponsorship applications for spouses, common-law partners, and adult children until June 2026, citing a growing backlog and excessively long processing times—now approaching three years. The province aims to clear existing files before accepting new ones, with exceptions only for minor children under 18. The decision has sparked concern among families and advocates, who say it unfairly delays reunification and may pressure some to relocate to other provinces. (Toronto Star)
A group of refugees settling in Canada discovered a sense of belonging and emotional support through participation in local sports programs. Facing the challenges of resettlement, these individuals, many from conflict-affected countries, turned to team-based sports to build community and improve mental well-being. Coaches and organizations facilitating these programs noted how sports enhanced physical fitness, fostered friendships, reduced isolation, and strengthened newcomers’ connection to Canadian society. Ultimately, the athletes describe sports as a lifeline that helped them feel “not alone” in their new country. (Toronto Star)
As of April 25, 2023, the proof of funds requirement for Express Entry (Federal Skilled Worker Program and Federal Skilled Trades Program) was increased to match prevailing wage trends in Canada, ensuring that applicants have sufficient means to support themselves and their families upon arrival. The required amounts vary based on family size, and applicants must provide detailed, official letters from financial institutions confirming account details, balances, and debts. These funds are not required for those with a valid job offer or applying under the Canadian Experience Class.
On July 11, 2025, Ontario published that it had reached its full 2024 nomination cap under the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) and published a detailed breakdown of invitations issued by category.
The table below outlines the distribution of nominations across various OINP streams in 2024:
This announcement does not affect federal immigration processing for candidates who have already received an OINP nomination and submitted their permanent residence applications to IRCC.
As of July 11, 2024, Quebec’s Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI) has announced that it has reached the maximum number of sponsorship undertaking applications it can accept for certain family members under the family reunification category for the period June 26, 2024 to June 25, 2026. This cap specifically applies to sponsorships of:
No new applications for these family members will be accepted until after June 25, 2026. Any submissions received after the cap was reached will be returned without processing, and fees will not be charged.
Sponsors whose applications are returned may reapply when a new intake period opens. MIFI will announce the next steps and future intake details by June 25, 2026.
Sponsorship applications for other eligible family members under the family reunification program are still being accepted.
This summary provides the latest updates on Canadian immigration draws held in July 2025.
It includes recent rounds of invitations under the Express Entry system (CEC and PNP categories) as well as provincial nominee program draws from British Columbia and Manitoba.
Each draw reflects the number of invitations issued and the lowest score considered, giving insight into current selection trends and competitiveness.
Issue: Whether the officer unreasonably failed to consider dual intent in a work permit refusal under a permanent residence LMIA stream.
Facts: Mr. Singh applied for a work permit as a carpenter under an LMIA explicitly linked to a PR pathway. The officer denied the application without addressing the PR intent.
Court Findings: The officer overlooked the LMIA’s PR pathway, rendering the refusal unreasonable. Ignoring dual intent in such cases renders the decision unreasonable.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Matter remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that officers must consider dual intent where LMIA-based work permits are tied to permanent residence pathways.
Issue: Whether mandamus was warranted due to prolonged delay in processing a spousal sponsorship application.
Facts: Mr. Owusu’s application was delayed for over two years after IRCC committed to reprocessing it. No explanation or action followed despite a response to a procedural fairness letter.
Court Findings: The delay was unreasonable and unjustified. The Minister provided no evidence of steps taken or challenges justifying the delay.
Outcome: Mandamus granted. IRCC ordered to render a decision within 90 days.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that unexplained delays in permanent residence processing, especially after a prior refusal, is actionable and justifies mandamus relief.
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusal of a TRV for lack of ties and financial resources was reasonable.
Facts: A 34-year-old Iranian applicant, applied for a TRV to visit her sisters in Canada. IRCC refused on three grounds: insufficient financial support, lack of ties outside Canada, and purpose of travel inconsistent with a temporary stay.
Court Findings: The officer failed to properly assess the applicant’s evidence regarding finances and family ties. The boilerplate reasons offered no insight into the officer’s reasoning, and the conclusions on job insecurity contradicted the applicant’s stable work and education history.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms the requirement for TRV refusals to provide intelligible and evidence-based reasons, especially when multiple refusal grounds are cited.
Issue: Whether the study permit refusal was reasonable in light of clear ties to Iran and a promotion contingent on the study.
Facts: Mr. Aminian, an Iranian applicant with a professional background and an offer of promotion linked to further education in Canada, was refused a study permit for lacking ties and an illogical program choice.
Court Findings: The officer mischaracterized Aminian’s employment history and failed to consider clear evidence linking the proposed study to a job promotion. The officer also overlooked strong family and professional ties in Iran.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. The matter is remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights the requirement for officers to meaningfully engage with evidence, especially when career advancement and family ties are well established.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a TRV for a mother and son was procedurally fair and reasonable, including the relevance of a pending reconsideration request.
Facts: The applicants were refused a TRV based on financial insufficiency and lack of ties. A reconsideration request was later submitted, but not responded to.
Court Findings: The refusal did not involve credibility concerns and thus did not breach procedural fairness. The reconsideration request postdated the decision and was not relevant to the review.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that failure to consider a post-decision reconsideration request is not a procedural fairness breach and reinforces the evidentiary standard for TRV refusals. Court also hints at Mandamus for inaction on reconsideration requests.
Issue: Whether an H&C refusal was reasonable in its assessment of remorse related to a criminal conviction.
Facts: Mr. Rasamaney, a long-term resident of Canada, applied for H&C on grounds of establishment and health. The officer found he lacked remorse for a 2022 criminal conviction.
Court Findings: The officer ignored the applicant’s second affidavit explicitly addressing remorse, addiction, and rehabilitation. This was a key piece of evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision quashed and remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that decision-makers must grapple with post-conviction rehabilitation evidence in H&C assessments, particularly regarding remorse and future risk.
Issue: Whether the finding of inadmissibility under s. 34(1)(d) IRPA (security risk) was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Sarhadi was found inadmissible due to her work on a particle accelerator project in Iran. Her family’s PR application was refused under s. 42 IRPA. The officer relied on speculative links to nuclear weaponry.
Court Findings: The inadmissibility finding was speculative and not based on credible evidence. Expert letters were dismissed solely due to bias, which was improper.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Matter remitted to another officer.
Why This Case is Important: Strengthens the evidentiary threshold for security-based inadmissibility findings and warns against dismissing expert support without adequate reasons.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit under the TPP (Türkiye/Syria) was reasonable following a settlement agreement.
Facts: The applicant, a Turkish national, applied under the TPP. After leaving Canada and failing to respond to IRCC’s request for proof of presence, her application was refused.
Court Findings: The refusal was reasonable and consistent with the terms of settlement. The applicant failed to provide required documents, and her arguments on procedural fairness were unsupported by evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that courts will uphold refusals when applicants do not comply with agreed procedural steps, even in special policy contexts.
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.