Federal Court Grants Visa Application Review After Officer Error

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260601 Docket: IMM-23234-24 Citation: 2026 FC 711 Ottawa, Ontario, June 1, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] On November 25, 2024, the Applicant filed the underlying application for leave and for judicial review [ALJR] of the decision of an [RESPONDENT] [Officer] dated September 25, 2024, whereby the Officer rejected the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident [NAME] to come to Canada and visit his childhood friend and celebrate his friend’s son’s first birthday, and also to briefly visit his uncle. [ 2 ] For the reasons set out below, the application is granted.

II. Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant perfected the application by serving and filing the Applicant’s Record on February 17, 2025. The Respondent filed the Respondent’s Memorandum of Argument on March 17, 2025 and the certified tribunal record [CTR] was transmitted on September 11, 2025. [ 4 ] Leave to commence the application for judicial review was granted by Justice Sébastien Grammond on March 10, 2026 and the hearing was scheduled to take place on May 26, 2026. [ 5 ] On April 17, 2026, the Respondent offered to settle the application on a with prejudice basis on the following terms. First, the Officer’s decision would be set aside. Second, the matter would be sent back for redetermination by a different [NAME] officer. Third, the Applicant would be provided with the opportunity to submit updated documentation in support of his application. Finally, no costs would be awarded to either party. [ 6 ] In the absence of any response from the Applicant to the offer to settle, the Respondent filed a motion in writing requesting the same relief set out in the offer to settle. [ 7 ] The Applicant opposed the motion. While acknowledging that the settlement terms mirrored the substantive relief sought in the ALJR, the Applicant was unwilling to settle the matter without costs “because a settlement without costs and without a definitive finding of unreasonableness would leave the Applicant with no remedy for the extraordinary hardship he has endured.” III. Analysis [ 8 ] The Respondent’s motion and the Applicant’s application were heard together. [ 9 ] At the hearing, I advised counsel for the parties that I was not satisfied that special reasons existed in this case justifying an award of costs in the Applicant’s favour, as is required by Rule 22 of the Federal Court Citizenship, [RESPONDENT] Protection Rules , SOR/93-22. While there was a lack of attention paid by the Officer to the Applicant’s application after it was sent back for redetermination, the Applicant failed to establish that the Officer “ignored” his updated documentation or acted in a manner that may be characterized as unfair, oppressive, improper or actuated by bad faith. In my view, it was a simple error on the Officer’s part. Moreover, although there was some delay by the Respondent in reaching out to the Applicant to settle the proceeding, I am not satisfied that the Respondent unnecessarily or unreasonably prolonged the proceedings after receipt of the CTR, which confirmed that the Applicant’s updated documentation had been overlooked by the Officer. [ 10 ] There is no dispute between the parties that the Officer’s decision should be set aside and redetermined by a different officer. The Respondent acknowledges that the Officer failed to review updated documents that the Applicant submitted after the matter was previously sent back for redetermination on consent of the parties. [ 11 ] However, where the parties diverge and what is the essence of their dispute is the term in the judgment regarding the way the redetermination process should proceed. [ 12 ] The Applicant’s concern is not with the ordinary operation of the statutory scheme, but rather with the prospect of the matter being once again refused based on an uncommunicated concern or perceived deficiency that has never previously been identified despite repeated rounds of litigation and redeterminations on the same [NAME] application. [ 13 ] The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s proposed wording, namely that the Applicant merely be permitted to submit updated documentation, does not adequately address this concern. The Applicant argues that a generally worded invitation to provide “updated documents” leaves the Applicant to speculate as to whether there exists any actual concern with the materials already on file and, if so, what precisely that concern may be. [ 14 ] The Applicant’s position is that the new officer assigned to the redetermination should be ordered to identify with specificity any deficiencies in the materials already on file and request only such additional information or documentation as required for redetermination of the Applicant’s [NAME] application. While I can appreciate the Applicant’s great frustration with the way his application has been processed in the past, I must agree with the Respondent that the onus is on applicants to provide the [NAME] officer with all relevant information and complete documentation in order to satisfy the officer that all statutory requirements of their application are met. [ 15 ] It is a matter of well-established law that a [NAME] officer has no legal obligation to seek to clarify a deficient application, to reach out and make the applicant’s case, to apprise an applicant of concerns relating to whether the requirements set out in the legislation have been met, or to provide the applicant with a running score at every step of the application process: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2016 FC 690 at para 38. To impose such an obligation on a [NAME] officer would be akin to giving advance notice of a negative decision, an obligation that has been expressly rejected by this Court on many occasions.

IV. Conclusion [ 16 ] In light of the above, the application for judicial review is granted. [ 17 ] No costs shall be awarded to either party. [ 18 ] The parties did not submit a question of general importance for certification, and I find none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-23234-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The decision dated September 25, 2024 refusing the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident [NAME] is set aside. The Applicant shall submit further updated documentation in support of his application for a temporary resident [NAME], if any, no later than fifteen (15) days from the date of this Judgment. The Applicant’s application for a temporary resident [NAME] shall be redetermined by a different officer within sixty (60) days of the date of this Judgment. There are no costs to either party. No question of general importance is certified. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-23234-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 1, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [APPELLANT], British Columbia For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent