Federal Court Upholds Exclusion Order for Misrepresentation in Immigration Application

Date: 20260521 [NAME] : IMM-24715-24 Citation: 2026 FC 648 Ottawa, Ontario , May 21, 2026 PRESENT: [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent reasons and

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] Mr. [NAME] [the Applicant] is seeking judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME], who issued an exclusion order against him for misrepresentation on his visitor permit extension application. In applying for an extension of his temporary resident permit, the Applicant failed to disclose that he had been offered a job in Canada pursuant to a Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA], and would therefore need a work permit, not a temporary resident permit.

I. Background [ 1 ] The Applicant is a [NAME] who originally came to Canada in September 2023 as a temporary resident to visit his sister in Edmonton. The Applicant was granted a 6-month visitor permit. [ 2 ] On January 15, 2024, the Applicant applied for and successfully secured a full-time job as a cook in an [NAME] in Calgary. The restaurant received a positive LMIA on February 6, 2024. [ 3 ] On March 8, 2024, the Applicant applied to extend his soon-expiring temporary resident permit. He used an immigration consultant to prepare and submit his application on which he indicated that the purpose of his request was to continue visiting his sister in Canada; no other reason was cited. The Applicant admits he did not tell his consultant about his plans to work in Canada, or anything about an employment agreement or a positive LMIA. The Applicant confirmed that he reviewed the paperwork prepared by the immigration consultant prior to the submission of the documents, and he knew the only stated purpose on his extension request was for him to continue visiting his sister. [ 4 ] After the extension request was submitted, but before a decision was rendered, the Applicant briefly travelled to the United States and sought to come back to Canada, requesting a work permit, as he had then received all the documents needed.

II. Decision under review [ 5 ] On December 18, 2024, the [NAME] issued an exclusion order against the Applicant for misrepresentation pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. In coming to this conclusion, the [NAME] found that there is an obligation to disclose all material changes in circumstances that have occurred since first applying for or receiving an immigration document or status, whether prior to or at the time of entry in Canada. The [NAME] found that the job offer was a material change in the Applicant’s circumstances which triggered a duty of candour on the Applicant’s part. Finally, the [NAME] refused the Applicant’s explanation that when he applied for his work permit, he was in fact updating his application for an extension of his visitor visa.

III. Issues [ 6 ] This application for judicial review raises the sole question as to whether the [NAME] erred in finding that the Applicant misrepresented a material fact. [ 7 ] There is no dispute that the standard of review applicable is that of reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65). [ 8 ] Where reasonableness is the standard of review, the Court’s role is to examine the underlying decision and determine whether it is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and whether it is justified in relation to the facts and law ( Vavilov at para 85). In conducting a reasonableness analysis, the Court must respect the role of the officer as decision maker in this regard, as they have specialized expertise, while the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the decision is unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 75).

IV. Analysis [ 9 ] Misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA renders an applicant inadmissible for either directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. Its objective is to deter misrepresentation and maintain the integrity of the immigration process and, as such, the onus is placed on the applicant to ensure the completeness and accuracy of their application ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 426 at para 24). Section 40 is to be given a broad interpretation in order to promote this underlying purpose ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 512 at para 25). [ 10 ] A misrepresentation does not need to be decisive, determinative or central to an application, nor does it have to induce an error. It is sufficient that the misrepresentation could have led to an error ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 428 at para 25). [ 11 ] The Applicant’s position is somewhat simple. He asserts that at the time he applied to extend his status in Canada as a visitor, he did not have all the documents needed to file his application for a work permit. However, and considering his visitor visa was about to expire, he needed to renew it to ensure he had a valid status when applying for the work permit. He therefore applied for an extension of his visitor visa and updated it when he was ready to file his work permit application. [ 12 ] In my view, the sequence of events supports the [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant’s “plans to work in Canada were probably his primary reason to seeking additional time here.” This finding is also supported by the fact that the Applicant had started looking for work shortly after arriving in Canada on his visitor’s visa, and obtained a job offer two months before applying for an extension of his visitor visa. His intentions at that time were quite clear. Finally, this finding is supported by the fact the Applicant did not even inform his immigration consultant of his intention to work in Canada and the steps taken to achieve that goal. At that time, the Applicant knew his employer had already received a positive LMIA. The Applicant simply chose to withhold these facts. [ 13 ] It was also open to the [NAME] not to accept the Applicant’ assertion that a subsequent, different immigration application would serve to correct or amend the first application. It is true that voluntary corrections to an existing application can be made when changes occur in the life of an applicant, and that in the event the misrepresentation is an honest mistake, the misrepresentation may not lead to inadmissibility based on paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA (see, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1441 at para 17). [ 14 ] However, this is not a case of correcting an original application. This a case where the Applicant filed an extension of a visitor visa and, while awaiting the decision of that extension, filed another application that included new information that was known to the Applicant at the time of his first application, and was found by the [NAME] to be material to his original application. [ 15 ] This is also not the case of an innocent misrepresentation. The Applicant knew, based on having reviewed the extension application prepared by his consultant that he had received a positive LMIA application in his name, and had a signed job offer to work at an [NAME] in Calgary. He chose not to include that information to his consultant and chose not to correct it on his extension application. [ 16 ] The [NAME]’s finding in this regard was therefore reasonable.

V. Conclusion [ 17 ] The Applicant has not convinced me that the [NAME] erred in its findings and that this Court’s intervention is warranted. This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 18 ] The parties have proposed no question of general importance for certification and no such question arises from the facts of this case.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-24715-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified. blank "[NAME]" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-24715-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING :

HELD BY TELECONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 22, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : [NAME] J. DATED: May 21, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT