Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Canada’s population growth nearly stalled in the first quarter of 2025, marking the slowest pace since early 2020. According to Statistics Canada, the country added just 0.1% (approximately 127,000 people) between January and March 2025, a dramatic decline from recent quarters where growth exceeded 0.5%. This slowdown is primarily due to a sharp drop in the number of temporary residents—particularly international students and foreign workers—as the federal government tightened immigration caps and imposed new restrictions, including a cap on study permits and stricter conditions for temporary foreign workers.
Analysts attribute this shift to Ottawa’s effort to ease pressure on housing, health care, and infrastructure, following a record population increase of over 1.2 million in 2023. While permanent immigration levels remain stable, the fall in non-permanent residents marks a major policy pivot. Economists and demographers warn this could have broad economic implications, potentially reducing labour supply and slowing GDP growth. The trend suggests Canada is entering a phase of more moderated, managed population increases, likely continuing through the rest of 2025. (Source)
Despite Canada’s urgent need to build more housing, recent federal policy changes have made it harder for immigrants to contribute to the construction sector. In 2024, Ottawa introduced a cap preventing most employers from hiring more than 10% of their workforce through the low-wage temporary foreign worker program, with no exemptions for construction—even as the industry faces a severe labour shortage. While the government acknowledges that many undocumented migrants already work in construction, a promised pathway to regularize the status of up to 6,000 workers remains stalled. Advocates warn that immigrant workers continue to be relegated to precarious, underpaid, and unregulated roles, undermining both worker protections and national housing goals.
The federal public service saw a net reduction of nearly 10,000 jobs between March 2024 and March 2025, with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) absorbing the heaviest losses. According to Treasury Board data, IRCC shed 1,944 positions, more than any other department. These reductions come amid rising immigration application volumes and the rollout of new legislative measures, including the proposed Strong Borders Act. The staffing cuts have sparked concern among immigration lawyers and stakeholders who warn that the reduced capacity may hinder application processing and policy implementation at a time when public demand and scrutiny are high. (Source)
Immigration Minister Lena Diab has reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to welcoming international students, while emphasizing the need for a more sustainable approach to managing intake levels. Speaking at the Canadian Bureau for International Education’s summer summit, the Minister cited pressures on housing, healthcare, and education infrastructure, particularly in urban centers. The government plans to consult with provinces and institutions to ensure future student flows align with capacity and support systems. While Canada remains a top global study destination, Diab stressed that long-term success depends on balancing growth with quality of experience and community support.
Resettlement Commitment: Between 2024–2026, Canada will resettle:
Humanitarian Funding: Canada has committed $50.4 million over four years to UNHCR to support displaced populations
Focus on Vulnerable Populations: The government continues to prioritize resettling the most vulnerable, including those affected by the conflict in Sudan .
Values Highlighted: The announcement emphasizes Canada’s dedication to compassion, human rights, and building an inclusive, resilient society.
Bottom line: On World Refugee Day, Canada reaffirmed its humanitarian leadership by committing to enhanced refugee resettlement targets, expanding family reunification, and investing significantly in UNHCR’s global efforts.
Who is eligible (except Quebec residents):
Benefits available until March 31, 2027:
Access requirements:
Bottom line: IRCC has broadened eligibility for settlement services under the Gaza public policy, offering comprehensive support, including housing, language, education, healthcare, and permit access, to eligible Palestinians in Canada until March 31, 2027.
Effective June 20, 2025, the CBSA has issued an Administrative Deferral of Removals (ADR) halting deportations to Israel due to the ongoing security threat from hostilities involving Iran.
The ADR is invoked under paragraph 230(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, a mechanism used when a country’s environment poses significant dangers such as conflict or violence — 16 such ADRs are currently active worldwide (including Iran since November 2022).
Who’s exempted? Individuals deemed inadmissible on grounds like criminality, human rights violations, organized crime, or security concerns are not protected by this deferral and remain subject to removal.
Resumption criteria: Once conditions in Israel stabilize and the threat level decreases, the ADR will be lifted and deportations of inadmissible individuals will resume.
Contextual note: CBSA is legally mandated to remove individuals once due process is complete. ADRs serve as temporary safety measures in volatile situations.
Bottom line: The CBSA has temporarily suspended removals to Israel due to current instability. This is a non-permanent measure, and normal immigration enforcement is expected to resume once safety allows.
Enhanced Control Over Immigration Documents
Improved Domestic Information Sharing
Refined Asylum Processing
New Ineligibility Grounds
Bottom Line: The Strong Borders Act aims to reinforce control over immigration and asylum systems by enabling responsive document management, enhancing data sharing, streamlining claims, and tightening eligibility criteria, all while maintaining legal safeguards and privacy protections.
Key Procedural Changes – Effective June 2025
The Court confirms that non-lawyers may not act for others unless they are also a party. Under Schedule C, unrepresented family members (e.g., parent and children) may file a single JR application based on shared facts/law. One adult may act as the designated filer, but only if named in the application.
Must be raised in writing or at hearing, with 5-day notice to opposing counsel. Non-compliance may bar certification.
If all parties consent (and no certified question is proposed), JRs may proceed without oral hearing.
Joint request due within 10 days of CTR filing.
Consent motions can proceed without formal record if:
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusals of the applicant’s H&C and PRRA applications were reasonable in light of her risk profile as a single mother in Mexico.
Facts: Ms. Contreras Bravo, a Mexican national, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and for a PRRA. She had come to Canada in 2019, became a mother in 2021, and separated from her abusive partner in 2022. She argued that returning to Mexico as a single mother exposed her to gender-based violence and social discrimination.
Court Findings: Justice Turley found that the officer failed to meaningfully consider the applicant’s new profile as a single mother and instead wrongly focused on her lack of past persecution. The officer’s reasoning in both decisions ignored critical country condition evidence highlighting systemic discrimination and risk faced by single, impoverished mothers in Mexico.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; both the H&C and PRRA decisions were quashed and remitted to a new officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: The decision reaffirms the principle that risk assessments must reflect present and evolving circumstances, particularly in cases involving gender-based violence. It also highlights the Court’s expectation that officers must engage with new risk profiles and not solely rely on past experience or status in the country of origin.
Issue: Whether the issuance of a deportation order was procedurally fair given the omission of key evidence submitted by the applicant.
Facts: E.M., a Rwandan citizen, tried twice to claim asylum in Canada via the U.S. border under an STCA exception. On her second attempt, she submitted new documents, including two birth certificates and an attestation to prove family ties. The Minister’s Delegate only acknowledged the attestation and not the birth certificates in deciding to issue a deportation order.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable because it failed to acknowledge uncontested evidence, the birth certificates, on the record. The officer’s mischaracterization of the submitted documents as being incomplete misinformed the basis for the deportation.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; deportation order quashed and the matter sent back for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces the requirement for decision-makers to fully and accurately consider all evidence on the record. The case also underscores the procedural duty to recognize new submissions before issuing orders with severe immigration consequences.
Issue: Whether the Immigration Appeal Division’s finding of inadmissibility based on membership in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Nigeria was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Egharevba was found inadmissible for being a member of the PDP in Nigeria, which was alleged to have engaged in terrorism and subversion. The IAD reversed a prior finding of admissibility and found sufficient grounds to link his party membership with the PDP’s violent electoral practices.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the IAD’s decision as reasonable, affirming that membership alone, without active participation, is sufficient under paragraph 34(1)(f). The IAD’s conclusions were supported by credible evidence of the PDP’s violent conduct during elections and the degree of control exerted by its leadership.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms the broad and objective application of inadmissibility for organizational membership under s.34(1)(f), even where the applicant has no direct involvement in wrongdoing. The ruling clarifies that evidence of complicity is not necessary to sustain such findings.
Issue: Whether the PRRA decision was reasonable and whether the judicial review was procedurally valid given delays and non-compliance with court rules.
Facts: Mr. Hossain’s PRRA application was refused in February 2022, but he only initiated judicial review in January 2024. He failed to file a memorandum of argument and did not seek an extension of time. At the hearing, his new counsel acknowledged that no arguments could be made without taking the Respondent by surprise.
Court Findings: The Court dismissed the application from the bench due to multiple procedural defaults, including failure to serve a proper memorandum and filing the application out of time. The Court also reviewed the PRRA decision and found it reasonable, noting the applicant had not met the burden of establishing forward-facing risk.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed; no costs awarded.
Why This Case is Important: It serves as a cautionary precedent on the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in judicial review proceedings. It also reinforces that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the decision’s unreasonableness with evidence and legal arguments.
Issue: Whether the TRV refusal and inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation were reasonable and procedurally fair given the ambiguity in the procedural fairness letter.
Facts: Russian nationals Nanikova and Gevorgian applied for TRVs using PDF bank statements from a mobile app. IRCC claimed the bank information was fraudulent and issued a PFL. The applicants replied, explaining the source of the documents and submitting new verified statements, but their TRVs were refused and they were found inadmissible and banned for five years.
Court Findings: The Court found the PFL too vague to allow for a meaningful response. The officer failed to engage with new documents provided and did not assess whether the “fraud” finding was still valid after the applicants’ clarifications. The decision lacked transparency and justification.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the matter was remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: The decision underscores that a finding of misrepresentation demands a higher standard of procedural fairness and transparency, especially when applicants attempt to clarify or rectify issues.
Issue: Whether the officer reasonably assessed establishment in Canada in refusing an H&C application for a mother and her U.S.-born children.
Facts: Ms. Okojie and her minor children applied for PR on H&C grounds based on establishment and risk in Nigeria. The officer dismissed the application, largely focusing on her prior immigration history and giving limited weight to her establishment.
Court Findings: The Court held the officer’s decision was unreasonable as it failed to consider the evidence of establishment holistically. The officer focused disproportionately on past immigration compliance rather than current circumstances and contributions.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that H&C assessments must meaningfully consider establishment factors and cannot hinge solely on past immigration history.
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusal of an H&C application properly applied a compassionate lens and gave due weight to establishment and BIOC.
Facts: An Indian family living in Canada since 2018 applied under H&C grounds citing establishment, caregiving responsibilities, and hardship. The officer acknowledged their ties but concluded their situation did not warrant H&C relief, including for the minor child.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. The officer acknowledged and weighed all evidence, including the best interests of the child, but found no exceptional hardship. The applicants had not shown compelling circumstances justifying exemption.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms that officers can reasonably deny H&C relief even where applicants are well-established, provided all factors are considered and the decision shows a coherent, empathetic analysis.
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.