Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Extension Motion

Date: 20260521 Docket: IMM-15934-25 Citation: 2026 FC 646 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Toronto, Ontario, May 21, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Diner BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

ORDER [ 1 ] This is a written motion the applicant brought on February 20, 2026, for an extension of time to serve and file his record under Rules 10 and 21 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules , SOR/93-22 [Immigration Rules]. [ 2 ] The respondent opposes the applicant’s motion for an extension of time, noting that the applicant initially had until September 29, 2025, to serve the applicant’s record by reason of the 30-day time limit set out in Rule 10(2)(b) of the Immigration Rules, in conjunction with the additional 45-day time limit under the “Practice Direction and Special Order: Proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Citizenship Act (May 14, 2025)” . He had 75 days in total, but in the end, he filed his motion on February 19, 2026, nearly five months late.

I. Background [ 3 ] Briefly, the steps taken in this matter are as follows. [ 4 ] On July 15, 2025, the applicant filed with the Court, and served on the respondent, an application for leave and judicial review [ALJR] through his counsel. In that application, the applicant was challenging the Refugee Appeal Division’s [[NAME]] June 23, 2025 decision, in which the [NAME] had determined that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 5 ] For the purposes of the ALJR, the applicant’s memorandum and affidavits had to be served by September 29, 2025. [ 6 ] According to the applicant, he was unable to file the record by the September 29 deadline because of a computer problem and, through his counsel, he sought the respondent’s consent to an informal request for an extension of time to serve and file his record. [ 7 ] Although this informal request was not sent to the correct email address for serving proceedings on the respondent, the respondent still answered the applicant, indicating that a formal motion in compliance with the Immigration Rules had to be filed and served. [ 8 ] On October 10, 2025, the applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file and serve the applicant’s record out of time. This motion, which the respondent received on October 14, was challenged based on a procedural defect. [ 9 ] On October 31, Associate Judge Catharine Moore of this Court dismissed the motion because the motion record did not contain an affidavit as required by Rule 364(2)(c) of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 [Rules]. [ADDRESS]’s order stated that the motion was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new motion under the Rules (see Appendix B below). [ 10 ] This decision was sent to the parties as early as October 31, 2025, but counsel for the applicant claims that he only found out about it in early December. [ 11 ] On January 2, 2026, the applicant brought a second motion for an extension of time, but the respondent maintains that he was not served the motion. It was not until January 29, 2026, when the applicant served a supplementary affidavit, that the respondent became aware of this new motion for an extension of time. [ 12 ] On January 30, 2026, the respondent advised counsel for the applicant that the affidavit, which had been received even though, according to him, the motion had never been served, was inadmissible evidence. The respondent objected to the filing of the motion record and affidavit and sought direction from the Court. [ 13 ] On February 4, 2026, Justice Roy rejected the filing of the applicant’s motion, without prejudice to the filing of a new motion in compliance with the Rules no later than February 20, 2026. That decision is appended to this order (Appendix A). [ 14 ] On February 19, 2026, the applicant served the respondent with this motion for an extension of time.

II. Law [ 15 ] [ADDRESS]’s decision to exercise its discretion to grant the requested extension of time or not is guided by the four criteria set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly (1999), 244 NR 399 [ [NAME] ] at paragraph 3, namely, whether the applicant has demonstrated (i) a continuing intention to pursue his application; (ii) that the application has some merit; (iii) that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and (iv) that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists. [ 16 ] Since the fundamental aspect to be considered in granting an extension of time is that the extension be in the interests of justice and that justice be done between the parties, an extension of time can still be granted even if one of the [NAME] criteria is not satisfied ( [NAME]) v [NAME] , 2007 FCA 41).

III. Arguments [ 17 ] The applicant submits that the four [NAME] criteria are met, that is, he has demonstrated a continuing intention to participate fully in the proceeding and argue his position; he has serious grounds to raise before the Court, as he alleges that the [NAME]’s decision [ translation ] “contains palpable errors of assessment committed by the administrative decision-maker” ; no prejudice to the respondent will arise; and the delay was neither intentional nor induced by a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant—rather, it was tied to errors that had been made by the [NAME] representing him and that were beyond his control. [ 18 ] More specifically, counsel for the applicant, [NAME], contends that [ translation ] “the applicant gave him a mandate at the office to file his applicant’s record in a timely manner, he was always diligent. When he learned of our mistake upon service, he asked us to file this motion”. [ 19 ] However, [NAME] explains that the [ translation ] “applicant’s record was prepared on time, but it was not filed on time because of printer issues” . Specifically, he wrote that his record had not been served on time because of this [ translation ] “faulty printer that had stopped working on the day we had to file the applicant’s record” . [ 20 ] [NAME] underscores that he made an informal request [ translation ] “through our articling student that same day—September 29—but the Department of Justice did not accept our reasons for being late” . [ 21 ] He explains that following this, a formal motion [ translation ] “was prepared by our articling student, but it was not accompanied by an affidavit. The Federal Court informed us by email on October 31, 2025, that it was not possible to process it without an affidavit and that we would have to file another affidavit”. [ 22 ] [NAME] explains that he had been ill and had been admitted to hospital through the emergency room on November 2, 2025; that he [ translation ] “had worked only five days that November and had gone down south at the end of the month on the advice of his physician” ; and that he had subsequently [ translation ] “discovered the email that closed the file during a meeting with [NAME] on December 11, 2025” . [ 23 ] The applicant’s memorandum also states that he [ translation ] “came back to sign an affidavit on December 17, 2025, and that [NAME] prepared the motion for a stay, but the articling student had had emergency gum surgery and was not available to sign an affidavit. We believe that we acted diligently in the circumstances, [NAME] was not there for almost six weeks, save for one week”. [ 24 ] He goes on to mention that a [ translation ] “first motion for a stay was filed in the Federal Court on January 2, 1016 [sic, “2026”] but that the Department of Justice informed us that they had not been served, we do not know how this error occurred. [Our articling student] subsequently sought to add his affidavit but did not seek leave from the court to do so”. [ 25 ] [NAME] also argues that [ translation ] “we recognize that a lot of time has passed since September 29, 2025, but we do not want our client to suffer because of the issue with the printer and the fact that [NAME] was ill” . [ 26 ] [NAME] summarizes his client’s narrative, describing Chad as a very dangerous country for [NAME] and the applicant as a [ translation ] “member of a [NAME] that is at the heart of the FACT rebellion against the [NAME]. He is accused of having aided the rebels, and he has several family members who suffered repression after his departure”. [ 27 ] Lastly, [NAME] submits that [ translation ] “the applicant presented substantial evidence in support of his story. A decision was made to disregard the evidence without a valid reason”. He alleges that some of the evidence was not submitted by former counsel even though the applicant had adduced it on time, and that no explanation was provided in this regard. [ 28 ] The respondent opposes the extension of time. He contends that the applicant meets neither the [NAME] criteria nor the overriding factor: that it be in the interests of justice to grant this extension of time.

IV. Analysis [ 29 ] For an extension of time to be granted, the applicant must meet the [NAME] criteria as set out above. Indeed, the Court noted in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 206 FTR 313 at paragraph 5 [ [NAME] ] that “[a]s a condition for obtaining such an extension of time an Applicant must show that there was some justification for the delay throughout the whole period of the delay and that he has an arguable case” (see also [NAME] v [NAME] , 1985 CanLII 5550 (FCA) [ [NAME] ]). [ 30 ] Furthermore, the applicant is not relieved from the obligation to comply with the time limits set out in the Immigration Rules ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1679 at para 22 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 632). [ 31 ] The applicant alleges that his former counsel made errors in presenting the case to the tribunal. However, he has provided no evidence to support his contentions, be it with respect to the alleged errors, the information sent to former counsel to allow him to respond, or compliance with the other steps clearly set out in the Consolidated Practice Guidelines for Citizenship, Immigration, and Refugee Protection Proceedings (December 31, 2025, at paras 49–56). [ 32 ] In addition, the applicant has not provided the Court with any reasonable explanation justifying the whole period of his delay. In [NAME] , the Court, referring to the case law cited above, including [NAME] and [NAME] , explained that the applicant should provide a good account for the whole period of delay ( [NAME] at para 22), which he failed to do in this case ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 CanLII 45933 at para 8 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 CanLII 45932 at para 8 [ [NAME] ]). [ 33 ] Moreover, the Court is not in a position to assess the applicant’s claims and arguments beyond his mere allegations and those of his counsel. The applicant has not submitted to this Court any evidence or information as to the errors he alleges were made in the negative decision he is seeking to challenge on judicial review. Nor did he produce the impugned decision itself, which could have made it possible to establish the basis on which his application for judicial review could be allowed. Therefore, there is no basis on which to assess the merits of the application. [ 34 ] Numerous warnings have already been given about the incomplete documents or supporting documentation. Specifically, in her order dated October 31, 2025, which appears in Appendix B, Associate Judge Catharine Moore reiterated to the applicant [ translation ] “that without any evidence, the Court cannot be satisfied that any of the criteria identified in Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME], 1999 CanLII 8190 (FCA) have been established, nor that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the extension” . [ 35 ] Then, at paragraph 7 of his direction dated February 4, 2026, which is attached as Appendix A, Justice Roy again emphasized this fact: [ TRANSLATION ] “Without a proper, well-structured motion for an extension that presents well-articulated arguments on the four criteria relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion, I decline to offer an opinion on the outcome of a potential motion”. [ 36 ] This is the applicant’s third attempt to remedy the delay in filing his record. The backlog of immigration cases at the Federal Court is detrimental to the public interest, and the increased mobilization of public resources required to consider motions for extensions of time like this one only contributes to the backlog and, therefore, to the harm to the public ( [NAME] at para 11; [NAME] at para 11). [ 37 ] [ADDRESS] is of the opinion that the applicant has not met the [NAME] criteria and that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the requested extension of time. [ADDRESS] reaches this conclusion while recognizing the fundamental principle that the time limits prescribed by the Rules must be observed.

V. Conclusion [ 38 ] Even with the additional 45-day period, this motion for an extension was brought approximately five months out of time. In the meantime, this Court gave the applicant two opportunities to file his motion in accordance with the Rules, which was not done. This motion represents the applicant’s third attempt to remedy his delay. However, the applicant has still not shown that there is a reasonable justification for the whole period of his delay, given the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the criteria were met. The motion for an extension of time must therefore be dismissed.

ORDER in IMM-15934-25 THIS COURT ORDERS that: The applicant’s motion for an extension of time be dismissed. No costs be awarded, as the respondent did not claim any. “Alan S. Diner” Judge Certified true translation [NAME], Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-15934-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES .

REASONS AND

ORDER: DINER J DATED: May 21, 2026 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT