Federal Court Upholds eTA Refusal Due to Misrepresentation

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-13783-24 Citation: 2026 FC 830 Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne BETWEEN: [NAME_1] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision [the Decision] by an [NAME_2] [[NAME_2]] officer [the Officer], refusing the Applicant’s application for an electronic travel authorization [[NAME_3]], finding the Applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the [NAME_4] Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ], and declining to permit the Applicant to withdraw his [NAME_3] application. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Italy who resides in Singapore and is married to a Canadian citizen. He previously studied in Canada and, in June 2017, attended at British Columbia land ports of entry on three occasions. The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes that form part of the Decision record that he was refused work permits on each of those three occasions. [ 4 ] The first refusal occurred on June 18, 2017, at the Douglas/[ADDRESS] port of entry. The Applicant was nevertheless allowed to enter Canada as a visitor due to his involvement in legal proceedings. [ 5 ] The Applicant attended at the Boundary Bay port of entry with his immigration consultant a few days later to challenge the decision that refused him a work permit but nevertheless allowed him to enter Canada as a visitor. The Applicant’s in situ challenge with his immigration consultant was unsuccessful, a record was made of the Applicant being refused a work permit, and the Applicant was again permitted to enter Canada as a visitor on the same basis as he had been allowed on June 18, 2017. [ 6 ] An additional entry in the GCMS notes, available to the Officer at the time of the Decision, dated June 23, 2017, was considered by the Officer and reads as follows: “Client flag poled again today with his immigration consultant. Client was seeking a work permit under [NAME_5]: Canadian interests – Significant benefit general guidelines [R205(a) – C10]. Client was previously refused 2 work permits; one at Douglas POE on 18 June 2017 and one at Boundary Bay POE on 22 June 2017. Client was unable to substantiate how he meets the requirements of a significant benefit to Canada. Also, on 18 June 2017, the reviewing officer at Douglas POE found evidence that the client was working without authorization in Canada. Work permit refused because client does not meet the requirements of C10 and IRPR 200(3)(E)(i) – a period of six months has not elapsed since the cessation of the unauthorized work. Client has a valid VR until 30 November 2017 to facilitate his court date in November.” [ 7 ] The Applicant applied for an [NAME_3] in February 2023. In that application he answered “No” to the question asking whether he had ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry, or ordered to leave Canada or any other country. [ 8 ] [NAME_2] reviewed the Applicant’s application in August 2023 and noted that the Applicant’s GCMS notes history reflected that he previously worked in Canada while on a visitor record and that he was denied work permits in June 2017, while applying for them at a port of entry. [NAME_2] noted that this raised a concern that the Applicant may have attempted to misrepresent a material fact, i.e., the 2017 work permit refusals, relevant to the processing of his [NAME_3] application. [NAME_2] noted that a procedural fairness letter [PFL] citing section 40 of the IRPA was to be sent to the Applicant. [ 9 ] While the GCMS notes reflect that a PFL citing section 40 of the IRPA was sent to the Applicant on August 2, 2023, the record before the Court reflects that the Applicant’s evidence is that he did not receive that PFL. As time passed without a response to the PFL from the Applicant, [NAME_2] concluded that the Applicant knowingly provided incorrect answers on his [NAME_3] application and misrepresented a material fact pertaining to his immigration history. The [NAME_2] rejected the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application on September 20, 2023. [ 10 ] The Applicant sought judicial review of the September 2023 refusal on the basis that he had been denied procedural fairness as he had not received the PFL informing him of [NAME_2]’s concerns that he had misrepresented material facts in his [NAME_3] application. The proceeding was resolved between the parties by agreement whereby the September 20, 2023, decision was set aside, the [NAME_3] application would be re-opened and redetermined, and the Applicant would be provided an opportunity to submit or update documentation in support of his [NAME_3] application. [ 11 ] On April 5, 2024, the [NAME_2] officers to be involved in the redetermination of the [NAME_3] application were notified of the settlement regarding the September 2023 refusal. The GCMS notes reflect that the Applicant had made a submission to [NAME_2] on March 27, 2024, in which he sought to withdraw his [NAME_3] application altogether and, in the alternative, that [NAME_2] consider his updated information that provided background information and some information regarding the Applicant’s previous visa refusals. [ 12 ] The March 27, 2024, submission reflected that the Applicant’s former representative no longer had access to the Applicant’s files and that the Applicant obtained information through an access to information request concerning his immigration history in Canada. The submission provided updated information that was described as “the best of [NAME_1]’s recollections and the record that were disclosed by [NAME_2]”. In these submissions, the Applicant disclosed that he was refused a work permit on June 18, 2017, but was nevertheless allowed to enter Canada as a visitor due to his involvement in legal proceedings, and that [NAME_1] and his immigration consultant returned to the border to challenge the June 18, 2017, decision to allow him to enter on a work permit, but were refused. [ 13 ] [NAME_2] was unclear about the Applicant’s intention with respect to his [NAME_3] application following his March 27, 2024, submission, and on May 2, 2024, wrote to the Applicant and requested: a) that he confirm his intention and submit additional documentation as he had bargained for in his settlement before a fixed date if he wished to continue with the redetermination of his [NAME_3] application; or, b) state clearly in his response that he wished to withdraw his [NAME_3] application. [ 14 ] The Applicant responded to [NAME_2] on May 9, 2024, and enclosed additional materials in support of his re-opened [NAME_3] application. The Applicant’s response did not set out any request for the withdrawal of his [NAME_3] application following settlement. The response did, however, vary part of the Applicant’s disclosure of his previous work permit refusals as had been disclosed in his March 27, 2024, submission. The Applicant’s May 9, 2024, submission disclosed that the Applicant had sought to enter Canada as a permanent resident on June 18, 2017, and had been denied entry as a permanent resident but granted as a visitor due to his involvement in legal proceedings. The updated information did not include any reference to the Applicant’s June 22, 2017, attempts to contest the June 18, 2017, refusal of a work permit application, or, in fact, speak to any work permit refusal at all. There was also no mention of the June 23, 2017, interaction regarding a work permit found in the GCMS note referred to above. [ 15 ] The GCMS notes that the Applicant’s May 9, 2024, submissions were considered by [NAME_2] and that [NAME_2] noted the discrepancy in the Applicant’s submissions: the March 27, 2024, submissions disclosed 2017 work permit refusals, whereas the May 9, 2024, submissions disclosed a refusal to enter Canada as permanent resident without any mention previous work permit refusals. The GCMS notes reflect that [NAME_2] sent a procedural fairness letter relating to the redetermination to the Applicant because [NAME_2] was concerned that the Applicant may have engaged in a misrepresentation in his [NAME_3] application: the additional information he provided on May 9, 2024, in response to the [NAME_2] request for additional documentation to be considered in the reopening of his [NAME_3] application and its redetermination did not reflect the previous work permit refusals at all. [ 16 ] The procedural fairness letter was sent to the Applicant on May 13, 2024. It explained that [NAME_2] had concerns that the Applicant may be inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation in language worded as follows: Specifically, I have concerns that you failed to disclose previous work permit refusals in response to the following question on this [NAME_3] application: “Have you ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry or ordered to leave Canada or any other country?”. You responded ‘No’ to this question. However, information available to us indicates that you were in fact refused work permits on three separate occasions in June of 2017 (ie applications W302742166, W302760294, and W302759800, all submitted by you at [NAME_6]). [ 17 ] The Applicant responded to the procedural fairness letter on May 28, 2024. The Applicant included a substantive response to the letter as well as an “amended [NAME_3] application” that was actually a request for a temporary resident visa, and a reiterated statement that he wished to withdraw his [NAME_3] application as the reason for his travel no longer exited. The substantive response provided by the Applicant in response to the procedural fairness letter disclosed that he had been refused a work permit on June 18, 2017, and that he sought challenged that work permit refusal with his immigration consultant on June 22, 2017. [ 18 ] [NAME_2] then proceeded to redetermine the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application based on the record before it, including the Applicant’s inconsistent written submissions as to his work permit refusals and his intentions to discontinue his [NAME_3] application.

III. The Decision [ 19 ] The Officer refused the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application through a decision letter dated July 8, 2024. The reasoning that led to the Decision and forms part of it is set out in the GCMS notes. [ 20 ] The GCMS record reflect that the Officer noted, before engaging with the Applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter, that the Applicant had applied for a temporary resident visa on October 25, 2023, and that that application had been refused on February 8, 2024, after the Applicant had sought to withdraw that application. The Officer also noted that the Applicant had made another [NAME_3] application on September 19, 2021, and had sought to withdraw that application also. [ 21 ] The Officer observed the inconsistencies, multiple applications and requests to withdraw in the Applicant’s immigration history and considered it appropriate in light of the record before them to redetermine the [NAME_3] application and the misrepresentation concerns despite the Applicant’s restated request to withdraw his application. The Officer reasoned that allowing a withdrawal would not further the IRPA ’s family reunification objectives to such a degree that [NAME_2] should jeopardize the integrity of its program by overlooking the misrepresentation concern that was before them. [ 22 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s written submissions and his May 26, 2024, statement that had been included in his response to the procedural fairness letter. The Applicant’s statement set out that when he filed his [NAME_3] application, he believed that his immigration consultant had filed an application for his permanent residency in Canada in 2017, and that he had not been refused a permit because he was permitted to enter Canada when he attended at the ports of entry in 2017. The Applicant also stated that he did not learn that his immigration consultant had made work permit applications on his behalf in 2017 instead of the permanent residence application he thought had been filed until his most recent solicitor had obtained information through an access to information request. He also stated that he knew nothing of the work permit refusals prior to March 2024 because none of them had been communicated to him by either his former immigration consultant or by [NAME_2] in a refusal letter in 2017. [ 23 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s explanation that he never knew and that no one had told him that he had applied for a work permit. The Officer did not accept the Applicant’s claimed ignorance of various facts that would have alerted him to the reality of his situation. Considering the Applicant’s statement along with the Applicant’s other submissions and the content of the GCMS notes, the Officer found it to be implausible for the Applicant to attend at ports of entry on three occasions, two of which were with his immigration consultant, and not become aware that work permits and not a permanent residency were at issue unless the Applicant exhibited a very high level of disinterest in his own immigration status. The Officer explicitly considered the Applicant’s statement and evidence in light of the content of the GCMS notes regarding the Applicant’s June 23, 2017, flag poling event and found that the Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent with the GCMS notes and their content regarding the discussion of June 23, 2017—with the Applicant—regarding his ability to satisfy the [NAME_5] work permit requirement. The Officer preferred the documentary evidence over the Applicant’s letter and statement in response to the PFL and formed the belief that the Applicant was not being forthright when he asserted that he was unaware that he had been denied work permits. [ 24 ] The Officer considered the entirety of the information and material available to them and determined from the evidence that the Applicant had, on a balance of probabilities, been aware that he had been previously refused work permits and concealed that fact on his [NAME_3] application. [ 25 ] The Officer considered that the previous work permit refusals were material to the administration of the IRPA in connection with the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application. The Officer reasoned that previous permit refusals would be something an officer would want to be aware of as part of an applicant’s history with immigration officials when making a full and complete assessment of an immigration application. The Officer concluded that the Applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter and the remainder of the record before them reflected that the Applicant had engaged in the misrepresentation of material facts in his [NAME_3] application.

IV. Issues [ 26 ] The issues to be determined are: a) whether the Officer breached procedural fairness by making adverse credibility findings without providing the Applicant adequate notice and an opportunity to respond; and, b) whether the Decision is unreasonable due to: refusing the Applicant’s request to withdraw his [NAME_3] application; or, finding that the Applicant had misrepresented material facts in his [NAME_3] application.

V. Standard of Review [ 27 ] The standard of review with respect to the Applicant’s procedural rights is correctness or a standard with the same import ( [COMPANY_7] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing [NAME_7] v [NAME_7] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). [ 28 ] Findings of misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA attract a higher level or degree of procedural fairness because of the severe consequences provided in the IRPA that follow a finding of misrepresentation. The severity of the outcome requires the decision maker’s reasons to reflect the stakes for, and from the perspective of, the affected individual, and address the affected individual’s provided responses in a substantive and fair manner ( Vavilov , at para 133; [NAME_8] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 76; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 171 at para 27; [NAME_10] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 614, at para 14). [ 29 ] The standard of review with respect to the Officer’s findings and Decision is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at para 25). A reasonable decision is one that is transparent, and intelligible, and is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints ( Vavilov at paras 85-86, 99-100). A deficiency in a decision must be sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100).

VI. Statutory Framework [ 30 ] Subsection 11(1) of the IRPA provides that a foreign national must apply for and obtain any visa or other document required by the [NAME_4] , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ] before entering Canada. Section 7.1 of the IRPR requires certain visa-exempt foreign nationals seeking to enter Canada by air to obtain an [NAME_3] before entry. [ 31 ] Subsection 16(1) of the IRPA requires a person who makes an application to answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and to produce all relevant evidence and documents that an officer reasonably requires. [ 32 ] Paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA provides that a foreign national is inadmissible for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA . Paragraph 40(2)(a) of the IRPA provides that, following a final determination of inadmissibility made outside Canada, the foreign national remains inadmissible for five years.

VII. Arguments and Analysis A. The Decision was made in a procedurally fair manner [ 33 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer made adverse credibility findings without notice and thereby committed a breach procedural fairness. He relies on [NAME_11] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2024 FC 1629 [ [NAME_11] ], and argues that the Officer did not merely reject an explanation but made a credibility finding that required further notice or an interview. [ 34 ] The Respondent argues that the 2024 procedural fairness letter gave adequate notice because it identified the precise concern flagged by [NAME_2]: the Applicant had answered “No” to the refusal-history question despite three prior work permit refusals. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s state of knowledge was necessarily in issue once he responded to the procedural fairness letter by saying that he did not know he had been refused work permits. [ 35 ] I agree with the Respondent and find that providing the Applicant with either an additional procedural fairness letter or an interview to address the Officer’s credibility concerns was not required as a matter of procedural fairness in the circumstances. [ 36 ] The 2024 procedural fairness letter identified the relevant statutory concern, the relevant application question, the factual basis for the concern and that a misrepresentation of a material facts pertaining to a specific and identified portion of the Applicant’s immigration history was at issue. The Applicant knew the case he had to meet, and he responded directly by filing submissions and providing his own statement that was based on his own stated ignorance of his immigration status and of the applications filed by his immigration consultant on his behalf to allow him to reside or work in Canada. The Applicant’s response put his knowledge and the plausibility of his explanation squarely before the Officer without raising a new credibility issue that had not been raised through the procedural fairness letter. The Officer did not introduce a new issue after the Applicant’s response was received; the Officer assessed the explanation given by the Applicant and found it lacking in its essential aspects when considered in light of the record. [ 37 ] [NAME_11] does not require a different conclusion. In that case, the Court found that the officer made credibility findings without notice in circumstances where the applicants had admitted omissions, had provided an innocent-mistake explanation, and had expressly requested an opportunity to respond to any credibility concerns. [ADDRESS] held that, at a minimum, the officer had to put the applicants on notice that credibility concerns would be relied on ( [NAME_11] at paras 24-28). [NAME_11] sets out that a misrepresentation decision may be procedurally unfair where an officer decides the matter on credibility grounds not fairly put to the applicant. The context here was different than in [NAME_11] . [ 38 ] A further procedural fairness letter was not required merely because the Officer was not persuaded by the Applicant’s response. The Officer assessed the Applicant’s explanation against the record, including the GCMS notes. The process was procedurally fair. B. The Decision is reasonable (1) The refusal to permit the withdrawal of the [NAME_3] to be redetermined was reasonable [ 39 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to justify the refusal to permit the withdrawal of his [NAME_3] application after settlement and prior to the redetermination he sought through his earlier application for leave and for judicial review. The Applicant argues that he had disclosed the prior refusals, no longer needed the [NAME_3] for the original travel purposes, and sought to avoid further unnecessary litigation and cost. He also argues that the Officer misunderstood the procedural history of his matter and unfairly characterized the file as a “vicious cycle” of litigation, withdrawal requests, and new applications. [ 40 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer reasonably refused withdrawal on program integrity grounds because a misrepresentation concern was already before [NAME_2]. The Respondent argues that the withdrawal request came after [NAME_2] had already detected the misrepresentation concern and after an earlier misrepresentation refusal had been issued, even though that earlier decision was later set aside to be redetermined. [ 41 ] As set out in paragraphs 20 and 21, above, the Officer justified their refusal to permit the Applicant to withdraw his [NAME_3] application in their GCMS notes. The Officer’s comments about procedural confusion, the Applicant’s related temporary resident visa application, and a “vicious cycle” of litigation were unnecessary commentary but they do not render the Decision unreasonable. The dispositive point in the Officer’s reasons is clear: the Officer refused the withdrawal request because [NAME_2] had an active misrepresentation concern before it, and the Officer considered it contrary to program integrity to permit the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application that was to be redetermined, following a settlement, to be withdrawn without deciding that concern. [ 42 ] [ADDRESS] has recognized that decision makers may refuse a withdrawal request where a misrepresentation concern has arisen. In [NAME_12] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 463 at paragraph 7, this Court held that routinely permitting withdrawal in the face of evidence of possible misrepresentation would undermine the public interest and could encourage applicants to misrepresent information in the expectation that an application could be withdrawn if the issue were uncovered. Similar reasoning appears in [NAME_13] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2017 FC 1155 at paragraph 37, and [NAME_13] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 871 at paragraphs 28-29. [ 43 ] This is not a case where the Applicant sought withdrawal before the misrepresentation issue was detected by [NAME_2]. [NAME_2] had already refused the Applicant’s [NAME_3] for misrepresentation in September 2023 based on its observation of the misrepresentation made by the Applicant in his [NAME_3] application. The September 2023 refusal decision was set aside by an agreement between the parties due to the Applicant’s alleged non-reception of a PFL and the breach of procedural fairness that resulted, not because [NAME_2]’s misrepresentation concern was without foundation. The agreement to have the Applicant’s [NAME_3] application redetermined gave the Applicant a fair chance to answer [NAME_2]’s misrepresentation concern; it did not require [NAME_2] to disregard the earlier detection of the misrepresentation, particularly because the same [NAME_3] application that contained the same misrepresentation remained before the Officer. [ 44 ] The reasons as set out in the GCMS notes disclose a rational chain of analysis that is justified in light of the record, the stage at which the Applicant requested withdrawal, and the existence of an active concern of misrepresentation. (2) The misrepresentation finding is reasonable [ 45 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer misapplied paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA . The Applicant argues that because he corrected the record before the Decision, the Officer had to assess whether, at the time of that redetermination, the corrected information could still induce an error in the administration of the IRPA . The Applicant relies primarily on [NAME_14] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1437 [ [NAME_14] ], for the proposition that an officer must consider whether a voluntary correction removes the risk of administrative error before a final decision is made. [ 46 ] The Respondent argues that [NAME_14] is distinguishable. The Respondent submits that the Applicant disclosed the prior refusals only after [NAME_2] had detected the issue and after an earlier refusal had already been issued. The Respondent also submits that paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA captures misrepresentations that could induce error, even if the officer ultimately discovers the truth before making the final decision. [ 47 ] [NAME_14] is of no assistance to the Applicant. [NAME_14] discusses how a correction may be relevant to the statutory inquiry under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA . It also confirms that an officer should not ignore the timing and effect of corrected. [NAME_14] does not establish that any correction of a misrepresentation automatically defeats a misrepresentation concern. It also does not stand for the proposition that an applicant may avoid paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA by correcting the record after the misrepresentation has been detected by the [NAME_2]. The reasoning in [NAME_14] was tied to the fact that the applicant corrected the misinformation prior to its detection by [NAME_2], before an interview, and before background checks ( [NAME_14] at paras 31, 44). That is not the case here. The Decision in this case arose from a redetermination that occurred after the misrepresentation had been observed by [NAME_2]. [NAME_14] is factually distinguishable and does not apply. [ 48 ] The Officer did not ignore the Applicant’s corrected information. The Officer explicitly noted that the Applicant disclosed the work permit refusals in his updated submissions and that those submissions had to be considered. The Officer’s conclusion was that disclosure did not prevent a misrepresentation finding. The Officer considered the updated submissions but found them insufficient because the Applicant had already omitted material information in his [NAME_3] application, and because the Officer did not accept the Applicant’s explanation for that omission in light of the record. [ 49 ] A correction made after detection and after an earlier misrepresentation refusal is not equivalent to a proactive correction made before the issue has crystallized. The Officer did not act unreasonably by treating the Applicant’s later disclosure of his work permit refusals as relevant but not curative. [ 50 ] The Applicant also submits that the Officer did not adequately explain how the nondisclosed work permit refusals could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA . He argues that there was no remaining risk of error once the refusals were disclosed before the redetermination. [ 51 ] The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The omitted information that constitutes the misrepresentation was clearly material to the redetermination to be undertaken. The [NAME_3] application directly asked whether the Applicant had ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry, or ordered to leave Canada or another country. The Applicant answered “No” in his application. That answer was inaccurate. [ 52 ] The undisclosed facts were not peripheral to whether the [NAME_3] application should be granted or not; they concerned three prior Canadian work permit refusals, all occurring at ports of entry within a short period of time, some with the Applicant present and accompanied by an immigration consultant. They related to concerns about unauthorized work and eligibility for work permits. These facts were considered by the Officer as being relevant to the Applicant’s immigration history and to a full and complete assessment of his eligibility and admissibility. [ 53 ] [ADDRESS] has consistently held that previous refusals may be material because they may lead to investigations, interviews, or verifications that may not occur if the officer is unaware of them ( [NAME_15] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1112 at para 17). In [NAME_15] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 872 at paragraph 17, this Court held that information about previous refusals is material to visa issuance, and that an applicant cannot rely on the immigration system to catch errors, even innocent ones. A misrepresentation need not be decisive or determinative; it is material if it is important enough to affect the process ( [NAME_16] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1695 at para 19; [NAME_17] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 428 at para 25). [ 54 ] The Officer’s materiality analysis in the GCMS notes was concise. There is no requirement that it be lengthier than what it was. The Officer found that the concealed information was material because it was information an officer would want to know to make a full and complete assessment of an application taking into account the Applicant’s history with [NAME_18] and past refusals. Given the nature of the omitted information, that explanation was sufficient, rational and justified. [ 55 ] The Applicant also submits that the Officer relied on speculation, personal experience, and a false dilemma. The Applicant argues that he misunderstood what was happening and believed he was applying for permanent residence. The Applicant also argues that the lack of refusal letters and the fact that he was permitted to enter Canada supported his mistaken belief. [ 56 ] This argument also fails to persuade in light of the record. [ 57 ] The Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s version of events, and references to the Officer’s reflection that they had never encountered a situation in which work permit refusals had not been confirmed in writing provide insight into the Officer’s reasoning and does not in the context of the Decision make it unreasonable. [ 58 ] The Officer rejected the Applicant’s account based on the record before them while considering the unusual circumstances described by the Applicant. The Applicant attended three ports of entry encounters in quick succession. The first occurred when he appeared without his representative. The later attendances involved an immigration consultant. The GCMS notes recorded that work permits were sought and refused. One note recorded that the Applicant was seeking a work permit under the [NAME_5] and had been unable to explain to the officer how he met the requirements of the program he had applied for. Another referred to a Labour Market Impact Assessment-based work permit. The notes also recorded reasons why the work permits were refused. Just as importantly, these notes reflect that the Applicant had been present when these events occurred and had been engaged in them. [ 59 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s claim that he did not receive written refusal letters. The Officer accepted that this was plausible. The Officer did not reason from the false premise that refusal letters must have been issued. The Officer’s point was narrower: even without written refusal letters, the surrounding circumstances and the evidence in the record betray the Applicant’s professed ignorance. [ 60 ] The fact that the Applicant was permitted to enter Canada as a visitor did not compel a different conclusion. A person may be refused a work permit and still be allowed to enter Canada temporarily on a visitor record for other reasons: the GCMS notes reflect that the Applicant was permitted to enter as a visitor to attend court. The Officer was entitled to find that being allowed to enter as a visitor on a visitor record did not reasonably explain the failure to disclose the work permit refusals. [ 61 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer created a false dilemma by suggesting that either the Applicant was lying or CBSA mistakenly created work permit applications. I do not read the reasons so narrowly. The Officer understood and was alive to the Applicant’s stated confusion about the nature of his application to enter Canada. The Officer assessed the Applicant’s evidence in light of the record and found it to be implausible because of the evidence in the record. The Officer’s reasons did not fail to grapple with the substance of the Applicant’s explanation. [ 62 ] The innocent mistake exception did not require the Officer to accept the Applicant’s submission. [ADDRESS] has recognized that innocent mistakes can occur in completing immigration forms, but the inquiry to be conducted to determine whether an innocent mistake has occurred has a subjective and an objective component to considered : 1) whether the applicant honestly believed that no misrepresentation was being made; and, 2) whether that belief was reasonable on the facts ( [NAME_19] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2023 FC 87 at para 31, citing Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME_19] , 2018 FC 159 at paras 5-6). The innocent mistake exception applies where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed the answer they gave was accurate and where knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control ( [NAME_20] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 105 at para 9; [NAME_20] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 589 at para 20). [ 63 ] The Officer assessed the record before them and found that the Applicant knew of the refusals. That finding was central to the Decision and was reasonably supported by the record. The Officer also found that, even on the Applicant’s own account, his lack of knowledge was not reasonable given his direct participation in the port of entry interactions and the involvement of an immigration consultant on two occasions. [ 64 ] [ADDRESS]’s role is not to reweigh or reassess the evidence and substitute its assessment for that of the administrative decision maker unless the administrative decision maker has committed fundamental errors in fact-finding that undermine the acceptability of the Decision. Implausibility findings may be made in the clearest of cases such as when an account does not make sense or falls outside what reasonably could be expected, provided the finding is grounded in the record and common sense, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by an applicant ( [NAME_21] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1155 at paras 10-11). The Officer’s findings are grounded in the documentary evidence in the record before them and cannot be reasonably said to be unfounded speculation. [ 65 ] The Decision and its supporting reasons are responsive to the Applicant’s central submissions. They address his claimed lack of knowledge, his reliance on the absence of refusal letters, his updated disclosures, the settlement, and the withdrawal request. The Decision is intelligible, transparent, and justified ( Vavilov at paras 85-86, 99-100). The Applicant has not demonstrated otherwise.

VIII. Costs [ 66 ] The Applicant seeks his costs of this proceeding. He submits that the Respondent’s handling of the file caused unnecessary delay, expense, hardship, and litigation. [ 67 ] Under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, [NAME_4] , SOR/93-22, costs are awarded in immigration matters only for special reasons. This as a high standard; costs may be warranted where a party has unreasonably prolonged proceedings or acted in a manner that is unfair, oppressive, improper, or actuated by bad faith ( [NAME_22] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1224 at para 40; [NAME_22] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FCA 208 at paras 5-7, 15). [ 68 ] The parties have made costs submissions in their memoranda. I have considered their argument considering the high threshold to be met for costs to be awarded in immigration matters pursuant to Rule 22. The Applicant has not established that special reasons within the meaning of Rule 22 exist in this case. The record does not establish bad faith, abuse of process, improper litigation conduct, or conduct warranting costs. There is no basis for costs to be awarded.

IX. Conclusion [ 69 ] The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons set out above. Neither party has proposed that there is a question of general importance to be certified and none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-13783-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to be certified. There is no order as to costs. “Benoit M. Duchesne” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-13783-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_1] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIDEOCONFERENCE ZOOM DATE OF HEARING: june 16, 2026

REASONS aND

JUDGMENT: duchesne, j. DATED: june 18, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_23] For The Applicant [NAME_24] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME_26], BC For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC For The Respondent