Federal Court Sets Aside Immigration Decision for Lack of Procedural Fairness

Date: 20260520 Docket: IMM-1834-25 Citation: 2026 FC 642 Ottawa, Ontario, May 20, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Conroy BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] An Immigration Officer refused [NAME]’s applications for a Temporary Resident Permit [TRP] and Work Permit [WP] on the basis that he failed to provide biometric information requested by [NAME] [[NAME]]. [ 2 ] The Applicant says that he never received the Biometric Instruction Letter from [NAME] and therefore the refusal ought to be set aside. The Respondent counters that the Biometric Instruction Letter was in fact emailed to the Applicant’s legal counsel on November 5, 2025. [ 3 ] The parties agree that at all material times [COMPANY] represented the Applicant and that all [NAME] correspondence in relation to the applications was to be sent to [EMAIL]. [ 4 ] The [NAME] [[NAME]] notes show three entries for [NAME] correspondence to [EMAIL] as follows:

1. BIL [Biometric Instruction Letter] letter sent to client on 2024/11/05 2. Biometric Fees requested on October 29th, 2024. Request sent via e-mail. Email confirmation below: Temporary Resident Application / Demande de residence temporaire From CPCE Email Communication Date Tue 2024-10-29 2:00 PM To [EMAIL]> 1 attachments (113 KB) D300144752.pdf;

3. Temporary Resident Application / Demande de residence temporaire From CPCE Email Communication Date Tue 2024-10-15 11:07 AM To [EMAIL] 1 attachments (59 KB) D300144752.pdf; [ 5 ] Copies of the three [NAME] letters listed above are included in the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR]. There is no dispute that the Applicant’s lawyer received the letters dated October 15 and October 29, 2024. The dispute centres on the Biometric Instruction Letter or “BIL” dated November 5, 2024. [ 6 ] Each of the parties filed short affidavits. There was no cross-examination on either affidavit. [ 7 ] An affidavit from a legal assistant at [COMPANY] relied on by the Applicant attaches a cover letter from the law firm addressed to the [NAME], dated November 1, 2024, and a receipt showing the biometrics fee was paid (for reasons unknown, this letter was not in the CTR). Following the description of the October 29, 2024, letter from the [NAME] the affidavit goes on to state: “No further correspondence was received.” [ 8 ] The Respondent relies on an affidavit from a legal assistant at the Department of Justice. It attaches (1) a copy of the [NAME], (2) “a screenshot of the outgoing correspondence tab in the [NAME] under the Applicant’s file” , and (3) a copy of the Biometrics Instruction Letter dated November 5, 2024. The screenshot of the outgoing correspondence appears as follows: [ 9 ] The parties agree on the applicable test: once the Respondent has established that the communication was sent to the Applicant, and there is no indication that the communication failed or bounced back, a rebuttable presumption arises that the applicant received it, and the applicant bears the risk for the missed communication: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 962 at para 28. [ 10 ] The Applicant relies on obiter dicta in [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1519 at paragraphs 13 – 17 [ [NAME] ]. As in the present case, the Minister in [NAME] relied on an affidavit sworn by an assistant at the Department of Justice, not the [NAME]. Justice Lafrenière held that the Department of Justice affidavit established that the letter was sent to the correct email address and thus the officer’s initial decision to reject the application was reasonable based on the information before them (at para 14). He however found that the decision to refuse a reconsideration of the initial [NAME] decision was unfair and unjustified. [ 11 ] Justice Lafrenière provided further commentary on the nature of the evidence before him. He observed that the hearsay evidence from the Department of Justice that the letter was sent had to be weighed against the applicant’s affidavit that provided firsthand evidence that the letter was not received. In [NAME] Lafrenière explained at paragraphs 16 and 17: The Respondent did not cross-examine the Applicant, nor did the Respondent file an affidavit from the Officer who sent the email communication to confirm that it was sent and that there was no indication that the communication may have failed or bounced-back. As it is, in a similar case, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1053 at paras 25-28, the Court has uncontested evidence that the email and attached letter were not received by the Applicant. [ 12 ] The commentary in [NAME] is persuasive. [ 13 ] I am satisfied that the Respondent’s affidavit from the Department of Justice establishes the Biometric Instruction Letter was emailed to the correct address.

Accordingly, based on the information before the Officer at the time, the rejection of the applications was entirely reasonable. [ 14 ] However, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Officer’s decision was procedurally fair. Procedural fairness is assessed on a standard akin to correctness: [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-56. [ 15 ] The uncontested evidence before me is that the Applicant’s representative did not receive the Biometric Instruction Letter. The affidavit from the Department of Justice, at most, demonstrates that the Biometric Instruction Letter was sent to the correct email address. It provides no additional facts that would tend to demonstrate that the email was actually received. The Respondent did not cross-examine the Applicant’s affiant, nor did it produce an affidavit from the Officer or someone else at [NAME] affirming that the email sending the Biometric Instruction Letter did not bounce back, or that a read receipt was provided by the addressee. As observed by Justice in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1053 at paragraph 27: It would be a simple matter for the [NAME], when sending such important letters via email, to request a delivery receipt which confirms that the email was delivered to the addressee and a read receipt that confirms that it has been read by the addressee. [ 16 ] In these circumstances, fairness demands that the Applicant be provided an opportunity to provide the biometric information requested in the letter that he did not receive. [ 17 ] Accordingly, the application is granted, and the Officer’s decision is set aside.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1834-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted The decision under review is set aside. The TRP and Work Permit applications shall be remitted to a different Officer to determine. The Applicant shall have an opportunity to supplement his application with the requested biometric information. There is no question for certification. No costs are awarded. "Meaghan M. Conroy" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1834-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: held by way of videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 4, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: CONROY J. DATED: May 20, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent