Federal Court Declares Family Class Sponsorship Refusal Unreasonable

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260624 Docket: IMM-19695-24 Citation: 2026 FC 860 Toronto, Ontario, June 24, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant challenges the refusal of her sponsored application for permanent residence under the family class, and the refusal to reconsider the rejection of her application. She alleges that procedural fairness was breached because her counsel who prepared the application was incompetent, and she also argues that the decisions to refuse the application as well as its reconsideration were unreasonable based on the evidence that was before the Officer. [ 2 ] As explained below, the decision to refuse the family class application is unreasonable because it was based on a misapprehension of the evidence and provided justifications that are not transparent. It is therefore not necessary to resolve the other issues raised.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a Vietnamese citizen who met her Canadian spouse in November 2019 while she was a study permit holder. The [NAME] married in Markham, Ontario and began cohabiting on their marriage date, December 3, 2022. A sponsored family class application for permanent residence was filed for the Applicant in September 2023. [ 4 ] The Applicant received a procedural fairness letter (PFL) expressing concerns about the genuineness of her relationship based on the “limited proof of cohabitation.” In order to address this concern, the Applicant was asked to provide a “letter of explanation,” a detailed timeline of the relationship, and several other documents including photographs, proof of financial interdependency, evidence of visits with her sponsor, and proof of cohabitation. The PFL also inquired why the Applicant’s counsel [COUNSEL] [NAME] was a paralegal but no Use of Representative form was submitted with the application. [ 5 ] The Applicant immediately contacted [APPELLANT] [NAME] and he responded that he was outside Canada. He advised her to go into her online application and “read and expand upon the story,” referring to the information provided about her relationship. He also invited her to email him with any questions. [ 6 ] The Applicant states that she and her husband hastily prepared and submitted a response to the PFL without the assistance of counsel, however the application was ultimately refused because the documents submitted to assess the relationship were found to be “sparse, at best.” The Applicant then submitted a request for reconsideration which was denied without reasons aside from a notation that no new documents or submissions were received.

III. Issues and Standards of Review [ 7 ] The first issue is whether the refusals of the sponsored family class application and the application for reconsideration were reasonable. This issue is resolved by considering the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ], affirmed in [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 SCC 21. A reasonable decision must bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [APPELLANT] at para 99). [ 8 ] The second issue involves the Applicant’s allegation of incompetence against the counsel who was hired to prepare and file her application. The incompetence of counsel, if established, results in a breach of procedural fairness because it impinges on an applicant’s right to be heard. The resolution of this issue does not involve a standard of review ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 105 at para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 FC 137 at para 31).

IV. Analysis [ 9 ] The decision is unreasonable because the reasons offered for the decision are not transparent and the Officer misapprehended the evidence ( [NAME], at paras 99, 102-103, 125-126). [ 10 ] The Officer’s principal concern appeared to arise from insufficient evidence of the Applicant’s cohabitation with her spouse. This concern is prominently placed in the PFL and it introduces the Officer’s decision and rationale in the [NAME] ([NAME]) notes. [ 11 ] However, the Applicant provided the following evidence of cohabitation: - Ontario driver’s licences of the Applicant and her spouse which reflect their joint address; - The [NAME]’s joint bank account statement which identifies their joint address; - An Ontario marriage certificate reflecting their joint address; - The Applicant’s husband’s Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment which reflects their joint address; - Communication to the Applicant from [RESPONDENT], [NAME] sent to the [NAME]’s joint address; - The [NAME]’s [RESPONDENT] forms signed under declarations of truthfulness in which they identify their joint address. [ 12 ] The weight afforded to the Applicant’s evidence was the responsibility of the Officer and not the Court ( [NAME] , at para 125). However, the Officer unreasonably characterized the Applicant’s numerous forms of cohabitation evidence as “limited.” It is also unclear why additional proof of cohabitation was critical to the application given that the Applicant was applying for permanent residence based on a married relationship, rather than a common-law relationship for which evidence of cohabitation is a defining element. [ 13 ] It is well established that the approach to recognizing spousal relationships must be flexible because the defining factors will “vary widely and almost infinitely” ( M v H , 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 3 at paras 59, 60; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2026 FC 278 at para 16; [NAME]. v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2020 FC 906 at para 12). If the Officer imposed a higher threshold of evidence for the Applicant, or found her evidence of cohabitation unreliable, an explanation was required. [ 14 ] The other stated reasons for doubting the Applicant’s relationship included: - The length of time that the Applicant spent in Canada; - The length of time the [NAME] have known each other; and - The Applicant’s original purpose for coming to Canada. [ 15 ] The Applicant had been in Canada for approximately 5 years at the time of her application, the [NAME] had known each other for three years and 10 months prior to filing the application, and the Applicant’s original purpose in coming to Canada was to study. It is not clear how this information undermined the genuineness of the relationship, and the Officer’s reasons are therefore unreasonable for their lack of transparency ( [NAME] , at paras 99, 102-103). [ 16 ] In addition to the Applicant’s evidence of cohabitation with her spouse, she provided relationship evidence in the form of descriptive dated photographs of her and her spouse during the relationship, including wedding photographs, a detailed timeline of the relationship, and proof of the [NAME]’s joint travel. The Officer’s unexplained characterization of this evidence as “sparse” is not transparent and is therefore unreasonable.

V. Conclusion [ 17 ] The Officer provided reasons that fundamentally misapprehended the Applicant’s relationship evidence and lacked transparency ( [APPELLANT] , at paras 99, 102-103, 125-126).

Accordingly, the decision to refuse the application was unreasonable, and it is not necessary to assess the denial of the reconsideration application or the allegations of incompetent counsel.

JUDGMENT in IMM-19695-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted and the decision refusing the Applicant’s sponsored application for permanent residence is set aside. The matter is returned to a different Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-19695-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONSIDERED IN WRITING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S

ORDER DATED MAY 21, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: June 24, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent