Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
In its first-ever report on internal misconduct, IRCC revealed that 62 cases of wrongdoing were substantiated in 2023–2024, including privacy breaches, harassment, and unethical interference in immigration files. Some employees accessed or inquired about the immigration status of friends or relatives, while others attempted to fast-track cases or asked colleagues to alter files. One case involved a staff member offering a bribe to approve a study permit, later claiming financial hardship, resulting in the revocation of their security clearance. IRCC emphasized that the misconduct involved a small minority of its 13,000 staff and praised whistleblowers for upholding accountability and transparency.
Canada’s Global Talent Stream (GTS) stands out as one of the most efficient routes for skilled Indian professionals seeking overseas employment. Operating under Canada’s Global Skills Strategy, this programme offers remarkably swift processing times, with work permits typically approved within just two weeks.
The GTS operates through two distinct categories:
Category A: Designed for high-growth companies recruiting highly specialized talent through designated referral partners.
Category B: Targets in-demand occupations including IT managers, engineers, data scientists, and digital media specialists.
Successful applicants can expect competitive remuneration, with many employers required to offer prevailing wages typically exceeding CAD 80,000 annually. Additionally, employers must demonstrate commitment to the Canadian workforce through job creation initiatives or training programmes for local employees. (Source)
Effective July 2, 2025, the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) will launch a new Employer Portal to replace the paper-based Employer Form for Employer Job Offer streams. This portal introduces a secure, employer-led digital process, requiring employers to submit job offer details before applicants can register their Expression of Interest (EOI). Key features include My Ontario integration, online application tracking, secure uploads, and reduced duplication.
To prepare for the transition, no new EOIs can be submitted between June 20–July 2, and all existing EOIs in Employer Job Offer streams will be withdrawn on June 21–22. The entire OINP system will be unavailable from June 27–29. Once live, employers must register through the portal so applicants can re-submit EOIs, which will then remain valid for 12 months and be eligible for future draws. (Source)
The City has launched two IRCC-approved pilot programs, the Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP) and the Francophone Community Immigration Pilot (FCIP), to help local employers recruit and retain skilled international workers in priority sectors. After consulting over 300 employers and community stakeholders, Sudbury identified five key sectors per stream and secured allocations for 525 RCIP and 45 FCIP candidates in 2025, with RCIP using a points-draw system and FCIP operating on a first-come, first-served basis.
The programs are managed by the Greater Sudbury Development Corporation with support from municipal staff and community selection committees, ensuring alignment with regional labour market needs. This initiative builds on the success of the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot, which brought 2,700+ new residents in 2024, and underscores Sudbury’s role as one of only two Canadian communities running both RCIP and FCIP streams, enhancing long-term economic resilience and integration opportunities.
The provincial government has successfully negotiated with the federal government to raise its Provincial Nominee Program allocation to 4,250 nominations for 2025, an increase of 1,500 spots compared to earlier projections. This expanded intake aims to help the province address labour shortages and support economic growth by welcoming more skilled immigrants this year. (Source)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has introduced a temporary measure allowing International Experience Canada (IEC) participants who are already in Canada to receive their new IEC work permits by mail to a Canadian address. This option is available until December 1, 2025, and applies only to individuals who are currently in Canada with a valid IEC work permit, have received a Port of Entry (POE) Letter of Introduction for a subsequent participation, and maintain valid temporary resident status at the time of the request.
Eligible applicants may request that their new work permit be printed and mailed directly within Canada rather than being issued upon re-entry. While the mailing request itself does not extend legal status, IRCC will aim to process these requests within five business days, though applicants should account for additional time required for delivery by Canada Post. This update streamlines access to a second or third IEC participation for individuals already residing in Canada under valid IEC status. (Source)
As part of its annual fee adjustments under the Service Fees Act, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has increased the cost for a Temporary Resident Permit from CAD 229.77 to CAD 239.75—effective December 1, 2024. This update aligns fees with inflation and the actual cost of service delivery. The TRP fee remains non-refundable and applies uniformly, regardless of the outcome. Should applicants have submitted the previous fee by mistake after December 1, they may be required to pay the difference.
Overall, this adjustment reflects IRCC’s broader strategy to ensure program cost-recovery while maintaining service quality and regulatory compliance under fee legislation. (Source)
Canada has implemented a Temporary Public Policy, effective April 23, 2025 until April 23, 2026, to facilitate entry into Canada for foreign nationals outside Canada who hold pre-approved temporary resident visas under the Updated Gaza-related measures and have not yet travelled.
Eligible individuals may receive exemptions from the following Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requirements at entry: (1) demonstration of intent to leave Canada (paragraphs 20(1)(b) & 22(2)), and (2) inadmissibility due to insufficient funds (section 39). All other admissibility and statutory obligations remain applicable. (Source)
The Canadian government has extended the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (EMPP), a program designed to offer alternative, skills-based immigration pathways for refugees and displaced individuals, through December 31, 2025. This pilot enables candidates with job offers in sectors facing labour shortages, such as health care, construction, and food service, to apply for permanent residence; it has welcomed 970 participants since its launch in 2019.
In 2025, the EMPP will accept up to 950 applications under the federal job-offer stream, helping both vulnerable newcomers gain durable economic status and Canadian employers fill critical vacancies. As part of Canada’s broader immigration strategy, this extension supports economic growth, addresses workforce needs, and fosters successful newcomer integration. (Source)
Issue: Whether the visa officer’s refusal of a study permit due to insufficient financial documentation and questionable academic motivation met the standard of reasonableness under administrative law.
Facts: Ms. Anokwah, a Ghanaian national, applied for a study permit and co-op work authorization to pursue a Software Development diploma at SAIT. The application included a statutory declaration and supporting financial documents from her cousin, who had pledged to fund her studies. The visa officer refused the application, citing doubts over her study intentions and inadequate proof of financial support.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer’s decision unreasonable due to a lack of responsiveness and logical analysis. Key evidence, including a detailed statutory declaration and bank records, was overlooked, and the officer failed to adequately assess her educational justification.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision quashed and remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that visa officers must meaningfully engage with applicant submissions and provide cogent reasons for refusal.
Issue: Whether the officer unreasonably denied a substituted evaluation under the Start-Up Visa program by narrowly focusing on language test scores without assessing the applicant’s overall ability to become economically established.
Facts: The principal applicant, a former physician from Iran and an entrepreneur in a SUV venture, was refused Permanent Residence for failing to meet the minimum language requirements. She requested reconsideration and substituted evaluation under s. 98.10 of the IRPR, citing professional experience. The officer dismissed the request based solely on the language scores, without a broader economic assessment.
Court Findings: The Court ruled the decision unreasonable, holding that the officer misapplied the legal standard by focusing exclusively on language proficiency rather than considering the applicant’s full economic potential. The officer’s logic misapprehended the purpose of substituted evaluation, which allows flexibility where standard criteria may not reflect an applicant’s broader ability to succeed in Canada.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that substituted evaluations must be grounded in a holistic review of the applicant’s capacity to establish economically.
Issue: Whether the issuance of a departure order during a refugee eligibility interview violated procedural fairness by failing to provide an interpreter or inform the applicant of the right to counsel.
Facts: The applicant, a Taiwanese national, made a refugee claim in Canada while holding a valid study permit. She was issued a conditional departure order during her eligibility interview. She later argued that her language abilities were inadequate and that she had not been informed of her right to legal counsel or interpretation services.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the decision, finding no breach of fairness. Evidence showed the applicant communicated effectively in English during interviews and did not request counsel or interpretation at the relevant stages. The Court distinguished between eligibility interviews and formal admissibility hearings, where rights are broader.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that IRCC officers are not automatically required to provide legal counsel or interpreters during refugee eligibility interviews unless language barriers or requests are clearly raised.
Issue: Whether IRCC breached procedural fairness by returning an application filed for permanent residence under the Parents and Grandparent Program [PGP] for missing documents without evidence that the request for additional documents was properly received by the Applicants.
Facts: The applicants submitted a PGP PR application. IRCC issued a request for missing documents via email, but the applicants claimed they never received it. IRCC proceeded to return the application after the deadline lapsed, citing non-response.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer acted unreasonably by assuming delivery without confirmation of receipt. The lack of delivery confirmation, combined with the applicants’ immediate follow-up and absence of bad faith, demonstrated a breach of procedural fairness.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. IRCC ordered to reconsider the application and permit submission of the requested materials.
Why This Case is Important: Sets a clear precedent on the responsibility of IRCC to ensure effective delivery of critical communication before penalizing applicants, especially in digital correspondence.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an H&C application for a family with two Canadian children was unreasonable, particularly in how the officer assessed the best interests of the children and hardship upon removal.
Facts: The applicants, Brazilian nationals with Canadian-born children, sought PR on H&C grounds. The officer acknowledged the children’s best interests favoured remaining in Canada, but found the overall hardship and establishment insufficient to warrant relief.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the decision, finding the officer’s analysis balanced and grounded in evidence. Although the children’s interests were positively acknowledged, the officer appropriately weighed them against other statutory considerations.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Demonstrates the Court’s deference to officers’ discretionary assessments in H&C applications when decisions show coherent, fact-based weighing of BIOC against overall circumstances.
Issue: Whether the officer erred by assessing the wrong taxation years when evaluating the sponsor’s income for a Parents and Grandparent Program [PGP] application, rendering the decision unreasonable.
Facts: The applicant submitted a PGP sponsorship application in late 2021, but the application was deemed complete in December 2022. The officer assessed income for 2018–2020 instead of 2019–2021, which would have been correct under the IRPR.
Court Findings: The Court agreed that the officer used the wrong reference years. Since IRCC had “locked in” the application in 2022, the three preceding years should have been 2019–2021. The error materially affected the eligibility assessment.
Outcome: Judicial review granted and matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces the legal importance of lock-in dates in determining income requirements for family sponsorships and highlights the need for precise statutory interpretation by IRCC officers.
Issue: Whether refusal of a study permit based on financial concerns was reasonable, given the applicant’s detailed financial documentation and sponsor affidavit.
Facts: The applicant, from Pakistan, provided a GIC, tuition receipts, bank statements, and a sworn affidavit from his brother pledging financial support. Despite this, the officer refused the application, citing inadequate financial proof and questioning whether full costs were covered.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable. The officer failed to engage with key pieces of evidence, including the affidavit and financial records, and did not explain how the funding was insufficient.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. File sent back to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights that officers must provide a reasoned explanation when rejecting financial documents and cannot ignore sworn statements or evidence that directly address the basis for refusal.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an H&C application by a Brazilian family was unreasonable due to flawed assessments of establishment, country conditions, and the best interests of a child.
Facts: Applicants lived in Canada since 2016, citing fear of crime, lack of services in Brazil, and strong ties to Canada. Their child, born in 2012, was attending school and integrated into the community. The officer dismissed these as common and non-exceptional and focused on whether the child’s basic needs could be met in Brazil.
Court Findings: The Court held the officer applied an elevated threshold (i.e., “exceptionality”), misunderstood the BIOC framework by focusing on survival needs rather than what is in the child’s best interest, and failed to adequately assess country conditions and hardship.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Case remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Strongly reinforces that H&C decisions must be grounded in compassion, proper BIOC analysis, and meaningful engagement with country evidence, without applying a high threshold.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Super Visa based on the hosts’ failure to meet the LICO was unreasonable, especially where the hosts resided in a smaller municipality.
Facts: Applicants applied for a Super Visa to visit family in Brossard, Quebec. The visa officer applied the LICO for urban areas with populations over 500,000, finding the hosts’ income insufficient. Applicants argued the wrong LICO was applied.
Court Findings: The Court ruled that under the IRPR and Ministerial Instructions, only the LICO for large urban areas can be used in Super Visa assessments. Officers have no discretion to apply localized thresholds.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that the income requirement for Super Visas is uniform and based on national benchmarks, not the actual cost of living in smaller cities.
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.