Federal Court Grants Judicial Review in PRRA Case

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-9265-25 Citation: 2026 FC 804 Toronto, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME] Mr. Justice A. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a decision by an [NAME] [[NAME]] officer denying his application for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [[NAME]]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I will [NAME] this application for judicial review.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Refugee Claim [ 3 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] is a 25-year-old citizen of Sri Lanka who entered Canada in 2019 seeking refugee protection based on his fear of persecution by the police. His claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division of the [NAME], and a subsequent appeal of this decision was rejected by the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]]. Mr. [APPELLANT] filed an Application for Leave for Judicial Review of the [NAME]’s refusal, which was ultimately dismissed by this Court. B. Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [ 4 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was later notified of his right to apply for a [NAME], and he submitted his application on September 8, 2023. What then followed was a series of miscues, which have echoed through to the present, almost three years later. [ 5 ] It appears that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] application was refused in a decision dated January 3, 2024. However, it was not communicated to him at this time. Not knowing that a decision had already been finalized, on February 15, 2024, Mr. [APPELLANT] submitted updated evidence to the [NAME], which suggested that the Sri Lankan police continued to be interested in him. Specifically, the evidence included a USB drive that contained a video showing police coming to the home of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s mother to look for him, as well as an explanatory letter from his lawyer describing the contents of the video. [ 6 ] The next day, on February 16, 2024, the [NAME] returned the USB drive and the letter, explaining that the evidence was not compliant with their procedures and would have to be sent by email in a compliant format. Of note, however, there has never been an indication that the letter accompanying the USB drive did not comply with acceptable document formatting. [ 7 ] For reasons that remain somewhat unclear to me, Mr. [APPELLANT] did not resend this information until he provided an updated submission on April 24, 2024. However, the next day, the negative [NAME] decision, drafted over three months earlier, was communicated to him. [ 8 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] filed for a judicial review of this first [NAME] decision, and the Minister agreed to settle the matter by returning his [NAME] application for redetermination to a different officer. [ 9 ] On August 21, 2024, a new [NAME] wrote to the Applicant to advise him to submit any material he wished to have considered by September 21, 2024. No response was provided. Receiving no response, the [NAME] sent a further communication on December 5, 2024. In this correspondence, the officer specified that the Applicant had until January 20, 2025 to resubmit the materials he had previously provided in April 2024, along with any additional information that he wished to have considered. Once again, the [NAME] received no response, and issued a refusal based on insufficient evidence. This is the decision presently under review. [ 10 ] Counsel for Mr. [APPELLANT] submits that he did not provide any further information in response to the August 2024 letter because he assumed that the [NAME] had his submissions from April 2024 and, at that point, he had nothing further to submit. Counsel further states that he has no record of having received further correspondence from the officer in December 2024. He also points out that the mailing address on the letter provided by [NAME] was incorrect and has never been associated with either the Applicant or his counsel. [ 11 ] This said, the Respondent has now provided evidence that the December letter was successfully transmitted by fax to the Applicant’s counsel. To his credit, the Applicant’s counsel, Mr. [COUNSEL], now acknowledges that the fax appears to have been sent, but continues to maintain that, for whatever reason, he never saw it. [ 12 ] Following this second [NAME] rejection, Mr. [APPELLANT] was scheduled for removal. However, he sought a stay of removal pending the outcome of this second judicial review application, which was granted by Justice Negar Azmudeh on May 15, 2025. In her detailed reasons, Justice Azmudeh noted that regardless of whether the December 5, 2024 communication was properly delivered to the Applicant, and regardless of whether the April 24, 2024 submissions were before the [NAME], it was unreasonable for the officer not to have engaged with the submissions made in February 2024 that accompanied the USB drive.

III. ISSUES and STANDARD of REVIEW [ 13 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] argues that the sequence of events that led to his [NAME] refusal resulted in both an unreasonable decision, and one that breached basic principles of procedural fairness. [ 14 ] In my view, this matter turns on whether Mr. [APPELLANT] has had a fair opportunity to present his case. [ 15 ] In addressing this issue, the Court will not defer to the procedural choices of the decision-maker, but will simply assess whether the procedure was “fair having regard to all of the circumstances, focusing on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for the individual(s) affected” : Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [ CPR ], [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1014 at para 26, [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) [ [NAME] ]. [ 16 ] In short, courts reviewing administrative decisions on questions of fairness must ask “with a sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual, whether a fair and just process was followed” : CPR at para 54.

IV. ANALYSIS [ 17 ] As should be evident from the rather long sequence of events that I have recounted above, this matter has been plagued by a series of mistakes, the majority (if not all) of which are attributable to either [NAME] officers, or to Mr. [NAME]. Indeed, the only person who appears not to have stumbled in this case is Mr. [APPELLANT] who, over two years ago, provided information that was crucial to the assessment of the risk that he claims to face in Sri Lanka. To this day, that information has never been evaluated by a [NAME]. [ 18 ] As I said in the hearing in this matter, one way of thinking about this case is to ask who should bear the consequences of the errors that both sides have committed. The Respondent states that the second [NAME] wrote to the Applicant in December 2024 to obtain the documentation that Mr. [APPELLANT] had already provided in April of that year, in addition to any other documentation he wished to submit. To this extent, then, the Respondent maintains that, regardless of what happened before, Mr. [APPELLANT] was given a fair opportunity to participate in his second [NAME] application. In the Respondent’s view, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s failure to respond to this communication does not establish any unfairness in the process followed by the second officer. [ 19 ] I disagree for two reasons. The first is that this argument ignores the fact that the [NAME] appears to have used an erroneous address in sending out this December correspondence. The second is that counsel for Mr. [APPELLANT] has always maintained that he did not receive the December correspondence. Even assuming that Mr. [NAME] is responsible for not receiving this letter, it is plainly obvious to me that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow this decision to stand, given that it was made without regard to the evidence that Mr. [APPELLANT] first provided in February 2024. The jurisprudence is clear that an infringement of the right to be heard, regardless of who is at fault for it, vitiates a decision that emerges from that infringement: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 812, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 845, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1600, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 771, [NAME] v Bénard , 2022 FC 1653 at paras 36, 46, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1176, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 140. [ 20 ] The right to present evidence in support of one’s case is a core component of procedural fairness, one that is associated with the “audi alteram partem” principle, and has been relied upon by Canadian courts for well over a century, see, for example, McRae v Marshall , [1891] 19 SCR 10 at 30. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in [NAME] (at para 32): Rather, the circumstances require a full and fair consideration of the issues, and the claimant and others whose important interests are affected by the decision in a fundamental way must have a meaningful opportunity to present the various types of evidence relevant to their case and have it fully and fairly considered. [ 21 ] While the content of the duty of procedural fairness is variable, there is no suggestion that the right to present evidence does not apply to the [NAME] context. In the present, and somewhat unique, circumstances, I am convinced that the Applicant has not had a meaningful opportunity to present evidence relevant to his case. Put differently, having placed a “sharp focus” on the substantive rights involved in [NAME] decisions, and on the potential consequences for Mr. [APPELLANT], I find that the process that led to the decision under review was not “fair and just” and, as such, I must [NAME] this application for judicial review: CPR at para 54.

V.

CONCLUSION [ 22 ] The application for judicial review is granted. The parties did not propose a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9265-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The matter is remitted for reconsideration by a different decision-maker. No question is certified. There is no order as to costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9265-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD by way of videoconference DATE OF HEARING: June 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: June 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and [APPELLANT], British Columbia For The Applicant [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent