On a recent attendance in Federal Court we sought clarification as to whether a Commitment Certificate can be replaced after the permanent application is filed, where the new certificate offers better terms or funding.

Although our firm argued for a broader interpretation of the regulation to support the ability of an applicant to enhance their prospects, the court adopted a narrow view. This landmark decision provides much-needed clarity on the role of the initial Commitment Certificate, emphasizing that it must be relied upon throughout the PR application process.

Key Takeaways:

Original Certificate – Once filed, the original commitment certificate must remain valid throughout the application.

Regulatory Boundaries – The court found no flexibility in the regulations to allow substitution, underscoring strict adherence to the original designated entity.

Pending Issues – A crucial unresolved question remains on the validity of amended certificates from the same designated entity—a contentious topic that adds to the uncertainty, especially after recent program changes like the cap introduced in April 2024.

For applicants, designated entities, and stakeholders, this decision highlights the importance of evaluating potential risks early and taking necessary remedial actions, particularly if changes are being considered to the Certificate or members of the business. Greenberg Hameed is here to assist with guidance on these critical decisions.

Case commentary to follow with respect to impact on pending SUV applications.

The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.