Federal Court Upholds Decision Against Misrepresentation Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260608 Docket: IMM-3500-25 Citation: 2026 FC 747 Toronto, Ontario, June 8, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant challenges the decision of the [RESPONDENT] ([RESPONDENT]) which dismissed his appeal of a removal order issued against him. The removal order was based on the Applicant’s inadmissibility for misrepresentation, and his appeal was based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. [ 2 ] As explained below, [NAME]’s decision was justified, transparent and intelligible. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] The background facts in this application have been previously described by my colleague Justice Andrew Little ( Canada (Minister of [NAME]) v [APPELLANT] 2024 FC 62 [ [APPELLANT] ] at paras 4-11). [ 4 ] Essentially, the Applicant is a [NAME] who was issued a removal order after being found inadmissible for misrepresentation under subsection 40(1) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. The misrepresentation involved his failure to disclose criminal charges and proceedings which arose during his time in Malta prior to his sponsorship for permanent residence by his Canadian spouse. The permanent residence application forms asked if he had ever committed a crime or been charged or convicted of any offence, but he did not disclose the Maltese criminal matters. [ 5 ] The Applicant did not dispute his misrepresentation in [NAME] proceedings. However, he argued that his circumstances involved sufficient H&C considerations to justify special relief from the removal order ( IRPA , s. 67(1)(c)). [ 6 ] The Applicant was initially successful in appealing his removal order, but Justice Little granted judicial review of the decision and remitted the matter to a different panel of [NAME]. This judicial review application challenges the decision of that second panel, which found insufficient H&C considerations to grant the appeal. [ 7 ] The Applicant advanced several H&C circumstances before the reconstituted [RESPONDENT] panel, including his establishment in Canada, the impact of his removal on his Canadian spouse and adult daughter, and his inadvertence in committing the misrepresentation. [NAME]’s refusal of the appeal rested predominantly on its finding that the Applicant and his spouse were not credible witnesses, the seriousness of the misrepresentation, and its finding that the Applicant showed a lack of remorse. In [NAME]’s opinion these factors weighed heavily against the granting of special relief.

III. Standard of Review [ 8 ] The decision’s reasonableness will be assessed pursuant to the principles described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ], affirmed in [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 SCC 21. A reasonable decision must bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [APPELLANT], at para 99).

IV. Analysis [ 9 ] The Applicant challenges [NAME]’s decision for its treatment of the Applicant’s establishment and hardship evidence, and the Applicant’s lack of remorse. However, these were reasonable factors upon which [NAME] could deny equitable relief, and [NAME] explained how these factors outweighed evidence advanced by the Applicant as the basis for his appeal. A. [NAME] did not unreasonably treat the Applicant’s establishment evidence [ 10 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] unreasonably failed to functionally balance the Applicant’s establishment evidence. Rather than assess the establishment evidence then balance it with other factors, the Applicant alleges that [NAME] neutralized the evidence because it was acquired through his misrepresentation. The Applicant alternatively characterizes this error as “double counting” the misrepresentation or “destroying the scale” before conducting the balancing. [ 11 ] As noted by Justice Little in the Applicant’s first judicial review application, establishment must be assessed and weighed against misrepresentation ( [APPELLANT], at para 48) and it may be reasonable for a decision maker to ascribe establishment evidence with neutral weight ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FC 435 at para 35 [ [RESPONDENT] ]; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2021 FC 38 at para 39). However, a reviewable error may arise when neutral weight is ascribed solely on the basis of misrepresentation without acknowledging an applicant’s degree of establishment ( [APPELLANT], at para 35; [APPELLANT] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 FC 1063 at para 35). [ 12 ] [NAME] did advert to the Applicant’s years of Canadian residence, his assets and his business. After doing so, it balanced this establishment evidence against his “flaunting of the laws” as well as the Applicant’s lack of remorse and neutralized it. It is clear from the reasons that the evidence would have been given “full positive weight” prior to the balancing. The Applicant is requesting the Court to interfere with this transparent and intelligible exercise of [NAME]’s discretion, which is not the Court’s role. B. [NAME] did not unreasonably treat the evidence of financial and emotional hardship to the Applicant’s family [ 13 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME] did not fully explain how the financial hardship to the Applicant’s wife could be mitigated by the Applicant’s assets. The Applicant faults [NAME] for not conducting a “meaningful calculation” or explaining how her current financial circumstances could be maintained without losing her house or losing the Applicant’s business. [ 14 ] [NAME] did acknowledge financial hardship to the Applicant’s wife, and reasonably assigned this slightly positive consideration. It also recited the Applicant’s evidence that his daughter would relocate from Vancouver to Toronto if she encountered financial hardship after his departure. There was no obligation on [NAME] to conduct a precise calculation of the financial impact of the Applicant’s departure on his family. [ 15 ] It was also reasonable for [NAME] to use the Applicant’s evidence regarding his past separation from his wife to find that they would face emotional challenges, but they could mitigate the hardship of their separation. [NAME] also reasonably found no hardship to the Applicant’s daughter, given her current residence far from his home. C. [NAME] did not speculate about the Applicant’s ability to manage relocation [ 16 ] [NAME] noted “minimal evidence” regarding the hardship to be suffered by the Applicant if he returned to Turkey. It also described the Applicant’s evidence that he would move closer to Canada to maintain connections with his family but there is no indication that this played a prominent role in its conclusion that hardship from his relocation could be mitigated. [ 17 ] With respect, the Applicant’s argument that [NAME] speculated about his ability to manage relocation misplaces the evidentiary onus. In the face of minimal evidence from the Applicant to support his request for [NAME] based on the hardship of relocation, it was reasonable for [NAME] to conclude that there would be minimal hardship in his departure from Canada based on his years of previous separation from his family, and his accumulated financial assets. There was no further obligation on [NAME] to explain “how [his] skills would realistically translate into lawful status, income, stability or proximity to his family” as suggested by the Applicant. The onus was not on [NAME] to disprove the Applicant’s entitlement to [NAME]. D. [NAME]’s application of its lack of remorse findings was reasonable [ 18 ] [NAME] repeatedly referred to the Applicant’s lack of credibility and his lack of remorse. The Applicant accepts these factors as relevant considerations for the decision, however, he argues that it was unreasonable for [NAME] to use these factors as a “lens” through which it discounted the balance of the Applicant’s H&C evidence. [ 19 ] The Applicant relies upon a decision of this Court for the proposition that it is unreasonable to treat a lack of remorse as an aggravating rather than a “missing mitigating” factor: [RESPONDENT] [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 1490 [ [RESPONDENT] ]. He argues that this decision establishes that lack of remorse can only be an aggravating factor if it relates to a criminal offence. [ 20 ] The Applicant’s reliance on [APPELLANT] [NAME] for his asserted proposition is misplaced. In that decision, Justice John Norris was reviewing a misrepresentation finding in relation to a spousal relationship that was disbelieved. Because the Applicant in that case insisted on the genuineness of the relationship, and thereby contested the misrepresentation finding, he was unreasonably faulted for lacking remorse. [ 21 ] Justice Norris determined that it was unreasonable to fault applicants for lacking remorse when they insist on the veracity of circumstances and the absence of misrepresentation because it is their right to do so: “[I]t was unreasonable for [NAME] member to fault the applicant for exercising these legal rights instead of simply admitting the Minister’s allegation that the marriage was not genuine and that he had, therefore, engaged in misrepresentation” ( [APPELLANT] at para 63). The misrepresentation of the applicant in [APPELLANT] [NAME] remained an “unproven allegation” until the final resolution of the issue ( [APPELLANT] at para 62). [ 22 ] By contrast, the Applicant in the present case conceded his misrepresentation, which was a proven fact from the time of the [RESPONDENT] hearing. [NAME] noted the Applicant’s admission of responsibility for the misrepresentation but also noted his evidence that he would not do anything differently. It was reasonable for [NAME] to interpret this as evidence of a lack of remorse in these circumstances and to weigh it against [NAME].

V. Conclusion [ 23 ] The task of [NAME] was to determine whether there were sufficient H&C factors to justify equitable relief from the Applicant’s removal order. In light of the inherent flexibility required by the task, and the range of factual and equitable considerations bearing on [NAME]’s decision, the decision it reached was reasonable. The fact that [NAME] gave greater weight to unfavourable factors in the H&C assessment does not undermine the reasonableness of the balancing outcome.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3500-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3500-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 3, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]. DATED: JUNE 8, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitor Toronto, [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent