Federal Court Dismisses Claimant’s Moot Judicial Review Application

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260625 Docket: IMM-5773-25 Citation: 2026 FC 865 Ottawa, Ontario, June 25, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants, four members of a family of five, are citizens of Nigeria. The [NAME] Applicant [APPELLANT] applied for restoration of his [NAME] [NAME] issued under the [NAME] visa [SUV] program, which in turn is part of the [NAME]. The [NAME] is a pathway to permanent residency [PR] that allows applicants to apply for a [NAME] [NAME] before the determination of their PR application so that they can establish the business in Canada while the application is pending. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s spouse and three children were issued a [NAME] [NAME] and study permits respectively, as accompanying family members. [ 2 ] Because Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] [NAME] was set to expire, he and his family applied to have their permits extended. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application, along with those of his spouse and two of his three children, were refused [Extension Decision]. The [NAME] [[NAME]] officer was not satisfied Mr. [APPELLANT] had submitted all the required documentation. The study [NAME] extension application of one of his children, however, was granted. [ 3 ] Following the Extension Decision, the Applicants were advised by their then-consultant to apply for restoration of status, as opposed to seeking leave of this Court to review the refusals judicially. Relying on this advice, Mr. [APPELLANT] instructed the consultant to file a restoration application for himself, his spouse and the two children whose extension applications had been denied. These applications were all denied by an [NAME] [Restoration Decision], again for failure to provide all the required documentation. [ 4 ] Upon retaining new counsel, Mr. [APPELLANT] filed with this Court on March 7, 2025, two applications for leave and for judicial review – one challenging the Extension Decision (IMM-5773-25), and the other challenging the Restoration Decision (IMM-5772-25). In both cases, the Applicants contest the reasonableness of the Decisions and raise a procedural fairness issue involving an allegation of incompetence against the Applicants’ [NAME] representative. [ 5 ] On June 19, 2025, Associate Judge John Cotter ordered that the two files be consolidated for the purposes of the leave determination only, with the leave Judge retaining the discretion to order consolidation of the hearing of the applications for judicial review. [ADDRESS] subsequently granted leave to commence the application for judicial review [Leave Order], but the leave Judge did not order explicitly that the applications for judicial review proceed as a consolidated proceeding. The parties nonetheless proceeded on the basis that the files were consolidated, and an amended certified tribunal record, compiling the documents that were before the Officer on both the extension and restoration applications, is of record in this proceeding. [ 6 ] The omission to consolidate the judicial review applications expressly appears to be an oversight. Further to my discussion with the parties on this issue at the oral hearing, and receiving no contrary views about it from them, I order that the applications for judicial review are consolidated. The consolidated files will continue under file number IMM-5773-25. [ 7 ] For the more detailed reasons below, the judicial review application will be dismissed because the refusal of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s PR application has rendered the application for judicial review moot. After considering the factors set out in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 1989 CanLII 123, [1989] 1 SCR 342 (SCC) [ [NAME] ], I decline to exercise my discretion to determine the matter on its merits, notwithstanding its mootness. [ 8 ] I begin by giving a brief overview of the [NAME] and associated [NAME] permits. I then turn to the question of the admissibility of paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A” to the Respondent’s Further Affidavit of [RESPONDENT] [[NAME]], which introduces the refusal decision of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s PR application [PR Refusal Letter], followed by the mootness analysis.

II. Analysis [ 9 ] Despite the Applicants’ arguments to the contrary, I find that the outcome of the judicial review application turns on the rejection of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s pending [NAME] PR application which, in my view, is admissible. I am not persuaded, in the circumstances, that there is any reasonable basis for determining the judicial review application on its merits in the absence of a fundamental prerequisite to obtaining the extensions or restorations under the SUV, namely, having a pending PR application in the [NAME]. A. [NAME] permits [ 10 ] An overview of the [NAME] can be found in [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 1130 at paragraphs 15-22. [ 11 ] Eligibility requirements for a [NAME] [NAME] under the [NAME] and the attendant [NAME] guidelines mandate that an applicant must demonstrate they: have received notification from a designated entity that a commitment certificate was issued, which indicates the applicant is essential and explains the urgent reasons for the applicant to be in Canada prior to obtaining permanent resident status; have a pending permanent resident application in the [NAME] , which was submitted while the commitment certificate was valid and, if part of an [COMPANY], that all essential members have pending permanent resident applications; intend to reside in a province or territory other than Quebec; have sufficient liquid funds (separate from investment funds) to meet the low-income cutoff for their family size for a minimum of 52 weeks; have the necessary language skill levels required for employment; have an offer of employment as an entrepreneur and have paid the employer compliance fee; and have submitted their [NAME] [NAME] application prior to entering Canada, subject to exceptions. [ 12 ] Applicants also must satisfy the [NAME] that they meet the other eligibility requirements under section 200 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 588 at para 1. B. Paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A” to the [NAME] are admissible [ 13 ] The Respondent served and filed the [NAME] on May 11, 2026, pursuant to paragraph 8 the Leave Order. The [NAME] [NAME] is a Legal Assistant within the Ontario Regional Office of the Department of Justice. Her affidavit introduces two exhibits. Exhibit “A” is a copy of the PR Refusal Letter, dated September 24, 2025 (as described in paragraph 2 of her affidavit), while Exhibit “B” is a copy of the SUV assessment guidelines in effect at the time Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] [NAME] application was received (as described in paragraph 3 of her affidavit). [ 14 ] In the Applicants’ Further Memorandum of Argument, they submit that Exhibit “A” of the [NAME] – the PR Refusal Letter – is inadmissible because it was not before the [NAME] who determined the extension and restoration applications. Although they assert that judicial review is limited to the record that was before the officer or [NAME], they do not address the exceptions to the general rule found in paragraph 20 of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2012 FCA 22 [ [NAME] ]. For its part, the Respondent assumes in its Further Memorandum of Argument that the PR Refusal Letter is admissible in this proceeding and similarly does not address the [NAME] exceptions. [ 15 ] Given the dearth of submissions on the matter, the Court directed the parties, on June 17, 2026, to serve and file submissions of not more than two pages addressing the issue and to be prepared to address it further at the hearing. After considering the parties written and oral submissions on the matter, I am satisfied that Exhibit “A” is admissible in this proceeding. [ 16 ] I do not disagree with the Applicants that it is trite law that “as a general rule, the evidentiary record before this Court on judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the [[NAME] …;] evidence that was not before the [[NAME]] and that goes to the merits of the matter before the [[NAME]] is not admissible in an application for judicial review in this Court” : [NAME] , above at para 19. [ 17 ] The Applicants further submit that it is not for the Court to determine what the decisionmaker would do should the matter be returned for redetermination. Yet, in my view, that is what the Supreme Court of Canada guides in stating that an administrative decision cannot be divorced from the institutional context in which it is made and that it is at times appropriate to decline to remit the matter “where it becomes evident to the court, in the course of its review, that a particular outcome is inevitable and that remitting the case would therefore serve no useful purpose” : Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 91, 142. [ 18 ] As mentioned above, there are exceptions to the general rule against expanding a record beyond what was before the administrative [NAME]. In [NAME] , while noting that “the list of exceptions may not be closed,” the Federal Court of Appeal described (at para 20) three exceptions to the general rule: When the new evidence provides general background information that might assist the Court in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review, but “does not go further and provide[s] evidence relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the administrative [NAME]” ; When the new evidence is necessary to bring to light procedural defects that cannot be found in the record from the [NAME]; and When the new evidence highlights the complete absence of evidence before the [NAME] when they made a particular finding. [ 19 ] In my view, and I agree with the Respondent on this point, the PR Refusal Letter falls within the first exception because it provides the Court with general background information that assists the Court in understanding issues relevant to the judicial review, specifically the redetermination remedy that the Applicants seek. I further find that the [NAME] does not provide evidence relevant to the merits of the administrative [NAME]’s decision because, simply, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s PR application was still pending when the Extension Decision and the Restoration Decision were made. [ 20 ] In the alternative, even if, as the Applicant argues, the PR Refusal Letter does not fall neatly into any of the three categories identified in [NAME] , and as I alluded earlier in these reasons, the list of exceptions is not exhaustive: [NAME] , above at para 20. The Federal Court of Appeal guides that new evidence should be accepted only where “the receipt of evidence by this Court is not inconsistent with the differing roles of the judicial review court and the administrative [NAME]” : [NAME] , above at para 20. In my view, this would be one of those instances. [ 21 ] In light of the above, paragraph 2 and Exhibit “A” of the [NAME] will be admitted into evidence because, when coupled with Exhibit “B,” it is relevant to the issue of mootness in terms of the remedy sought, and will [NAME] the Court to have a complete picture or record to decide whether “subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur[ed] which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties” : [NAME] , above at 353. C. The judicial review application moot in light of the PR Refusal Letter [ 22 ] As argued by the Respondent, and I agree, the PR Refusal Letter renders the application for judicial review moot in this case. This is so because sending the matter back for redetermination would have no practical effect on the Applicants’ rights under the [NAME]. The eligibility guidelines make it clear that a [NAME] under this program must have a pending PR application in the [NAME] (see [NAME], Exhibit “B” ); the PR Refusal Letter means that Mr. [APPELLANT] does not have a pending application. Nor is there any evidence before the Court that a judicial review application has been filed regarding the PR Refusal Letter which issued in September 2025. [ 23 ] Mr. [APPELLANT]’s submission to the effect that he is seeking redetermination of the Extension Decision and Restoration Decision generally in respect of the [NAME] and study permits, and not just under the [NAME], is without merit. In effect, he is asking the Court to consider the Decisions in a manner that is divorced from the PR application and the institutional context in which they were made (i.e. under the [NAME]). I find that this submission is contrary to the guidance in [NAME] at paragraphs 91 and 142. [ 24 ] As explained in [NAME] , “[t]he doctrine of mootness is an aspect of a general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question” : above, at page 353. The court may decline to hear a case where resolving a question “will have no practical effect” on the rights of the parties. [ 25 ] A two-step analysis is required to determine if a matter is moot. At the first stage, the Court must consider whether there is a live controversy between the parties: [NAME] , above at page 353. The Supreme Court found that there is no live controversy between the parties where a decision “could have no effect on the parties” : [NAME] , above at page 354. I find that this is the case here because any decision on the merits would not result in either of the parties’ rights being affected in the context of the [NAME]. [ 26 ] At the second stage of the analysis, the Court must decide if it will exercise its discretion to hear the matter despite the absence of a live controversy: [NAME] , above at page 353. In deciding whether to exercise this discretion, the Court must consider the existence of an adversarial context between the parties, the concern for judicial resources – including the effect on the parties, whether the issue is brief but recurring, and whether resolution of the controversy is in the public interest – and the Court’s role as the adjudicative branch: [NAME] , above at pages 358-363. [ 27 ] While I acknowledge that there remains here a dispute between the parties regarding the reasonableness of the Decisions and the procedural fairness issue raised by the Applicants regarding the allegation against their [NAME] representative, I find that neither of the two other considerations weigh in favor of the Court exercising its discretion. First, as noted, determining the merits would have no effect on the Applicants under the [NAME] in light of the PR Refusal Letter. The questions at issue on the merits are also not such that, in my view, it would be in the public interest to have them resolved in that it would not serve to advance justice if they were answered. [ 28 ] Second, the nature of the Decisions is not brief but recurring. Because the Applicants have not filed an application for leave and judicial review of the PR Refusal Letter, this determination is final and the Applicants no longer can receive extensions of the [NAME] and study permits connected to that PR application which was filed under the [NAME]. [ 29 ] Further, in my view, the Applicants’ arguments on the underlying judicial review do not give rise to a strong case, such that refusing to consider the question on the merits is respectful of this Court’s adjudicative role. [ 30 ] [ADDRESS] finds that, in the circumstances, the matter is moot and that it will not exercise its discretion to determine the matter on the merits.

III. Conclusion [ 31 ] For the above reasons, the Applicants’ judicial review application is dismissed. [ 32 ] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.

JUDGMENT in IMM-5773-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : Court Files IMM-5773-25 and IMM-5772-25 are consolidated and will continue under Court File IMM-5773-25. A copy of the Court’s Reasons and Judgment will be placed on both files. The judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5773-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT], [NAME] [APPELLANT], [NAME] [APPELLANT] [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME] OF HEARING: june 23, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 25, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The ApplicantS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME], Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent