Federal Court Upholds Misrepresentation Finding Against Claimant

Date: 20260629 Docket: IMM-7258-25 Citation: 2026 FC 879 Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant [NAME] is a citizen of India, who initially came to Canada on a study permit to attend [COMPANY] . He later applied for a post-graduation work permit [PGWP] in order to remain in Canada with his wife. [ 2 ] The PGWP application was refused because fraudulent documentation was provided to support the Applicant’s application, specifically, a fraudulent transcript and completion of studies letter from [COMPANY], a different college than the one he attended. The Applicant thus was found inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation, for a period of five years: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ], s 40(1)(a), 40(2). See Annex “A” below for relevant legislative provisions. [ 3 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision, arguing that the inadmissibility for misrepresentation finding was unreasonable. He asserts that the immigration officer [Officer] ignored evidence that he provided in his response to the procedural fairness letter he received from [NAME] [[NAME]], and that the Officer provided insufficient explanation of their Decision. [ 4 ] The Respondent counters that the Decision is responsive to the Applicant’s evidence and is reasonable in light of the applicable case law and the evidentiary record. Although the result for the Applicant will be disappointing and the outcome harsh, I agree with the Respondent. [ 5 ] Having considered the parties’ written material and oral submissions, I find that the Applicant has not satisfied his burden of showing that the Decision is unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, this judicial review application will be dismissed.

II. Preliminary Issue [ 6 ] I address preliminarily an issue relating to the Court’s protocol on Allegations against former counsel or another authorized representative in Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Cases before the Federal Court [Allegations Protocol], contained in the Court’s Consolidated Practice Guidelines for Citizenship, Immigration, and Refugee Protection Proceedings (version as of December 31, 2025; recently updated as of June 26, 2026). The Respondent submits that the Applicant did not follow the Allegations Protocol or give counsel notice that an allegation of fraud was going to be put before the Court. According to the Respondent, the Court ought not to examine the allegation because the Applicant has not met the initial burden of putting former counsel on notice: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FC 1174 at para 30, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 FC 1509 at paras 31-32. At the hearing of this matter, Respondent’s counsel did not make further submissions on this point, advising instead that the Respondent would rely on their written submissions. [ 7 ] The Applicant submits that he was not required to follow the Allegations Protocol because he is not advancing that the decision is unreasonable or procedurally unfair because of his former counsel’s actions. Instead, the Applicant’s submissions relate to the Officer’s failure to engage meaningfully with his response to the PFL and to consider the applicability of the innocent mistake exception to misrepresentation. [ 8 ] I am not persuaded the Allegations Protocol applies in the circumstances. The jurisprudence on which the Respondent relies is distinguishable because it relates to situations where the applicant asked the Court to make a finding that former counsel’s conduct rendered the decision procedurally unfair. This is not the case here; the Applicant does not seek from this Court a direct finding regarding former counsel’s conduct. [ 9 ] Further, the Court has not required applicants to follow the Allegations Protocol when they advance similar arguments to those advanced by the Applicant here: see, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 850 at paras 27-32. [ 10 ] Mindful of the reputational impact that the facts alleged in this application could have on the consultant, however, and given their inability to respond to the allegations made against them before the Officer, I have exercised my discretion to not mention the consultant by name in these reasons.

III. Analysis [ 11 ] There is no disagreement that the presumptive review standard of reasonableness applies to the matter presently before the Court. As I will I explain, I find that, contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, the Decision bears the hallmarks of justification, intelligibility and transparency, with a logical chain of analysis and sufficiently coherent reasons that permit the Court to “to connect the dots on the page where the lines, and the direction they are headed, may be readily drawn” : Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at para 97, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 431 at para 11. [ 12 ] I also note that the Court must not assess the Officer’s reasons against the standard of perfection, and that judicial review of the Decision cannot be divorced from either the institutional context in which it was made or the history of the proceedings: Vavilov , above at para 91. [ 13 ] In addition, the fact that it was open to the Officer here to draw another inference on the evidence does not mean that the evidentiary assessment was flawed: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 625 at paras 21-23. [ 14 ] With these judicial review principles in mind, I turn next to the applicable statutory scheme. Section 40 of the IRPA is to be interpreted broadly so as to fulfill its purpose of promoting the integrity of the immigration system: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 368 [ [NAME] ] at para 15. Section 16 of the IRPA also imposes a duty on an applicant to answer truthfully all questions put to them for the examination of their application and to produce all evidence reasonably required to determine their application. [ 15 ] Two factors must be present for a misrepresentation to lead to an inadmissibility finding: 1) there must be a misrepresentation, and 2) the misrepresentation could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA : [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1004 at para 11. There is no requirement that an applicant intended to misrepresent, or that the applicant was even aware of the misrepresentation: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 778 at para 31. [ 16 ] There exists a narrow exception to section 40 of the IRPA , which will apply only in “truly extraordinary circumstances where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed that they were not misrepresenting a material fact and knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control” : [NAME] , above at para 17. [ 17 ] The test for innocent misrepresentation or mistake involves both a subjective component, where the decision-maker considers whether the person honestly believed that they were not making a misrepresentation, and an objective component, where the decision-maker next considers whether, in the circumstances, it was reasonable that the person believed they were not making a misrepresentation: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1304 at para 19. [ 18 ] That said, a decision-maker is not required to consider an assertion of innocent misrepresentation or mistake where an applicant has not conducted due diligence to confirm that the information submitted in their application was authentic, including representations made directly (by the applicant) and indirectly (by others, such as immigration consultants); this captures “misrepresentations that were deliberate, negligent, intentional, unintentional or without the Applicant’s knowledge” : [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1458 [ [NAME] ] at paras 29-30. [ 19 ] The reasons for the Decision are contained in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes. The GCMS notes describe that a verification process was conducted on the transcript and completion of studies letter submitted with the PGWP application, which revealed that the documents are not genuine. The notes also indicate that the Applicant requested the withdrawal of the application, several months after the verification process was completed. Because the verification results were received prior to the withdrawal request, however, the Officer expressed concerns in the GCMS notes that fraudulent documentation was provided to [NAME] to support the PGWP application. A procedural fairness letter thus was issued to the Applicant. [ 20 ] The GCMS notes acknowledge and summarize the Applicant’s response, a brief overview of which is provided below. [ 21 ] In his response to the procedural fairness letter, the Applicant noted that he studied at [COMPANY] before moving to a private college. He described that when he married, he wanted to apply for a spousal open work permit, but he was informed by every consultant he consulted that it was not possible because his wife did not have a full-time job. He finally found a consultant who told him that he could get a work permit for three years. The Applicant provided the consultant with documentation, paid him $2,000 in cash, and the consultant applied for the Applicant. [ 22 ] The Applicant also recounted waiting for updates and, after a lengthy period with no response, visiting the consultant with his spouse. After an argument with the consultant and paying him another $2,000, the Applicant says that he was given login credentials and gained access to his online account. He still was unaware, however, of what was included in the application that was filed. [ 23 ] The Applicant asserted that he lost contact with the consultant for a long time. He tried messaging the consultant on [NAME] but they have disappearing messages on, which erases messages from the conversation log after 24 hours. The Applicant included [NAME] screenshots with some of the consultant’s responses to the Applicant’s queries about the documents filed with his application. The screenshots are undated, and in them, the purported consultant claims that they only filed the documents that the Applicant and his wife had given them. [ 24 ] The Applicant ended his response by stating that he did not study at [COMPANY] and did not submit the fraudulent documents. He indicated that he withdrew his application because of frustration that it was taking more than a year. The Applicant also stated that he wanted to apply with his wife who was applying for her own work permit extension. He attached all of his and his wife’s documentation and offered to come in for an interview. [ 25 ] The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because the Officer only reiterated what was explained in the Applicant’s response and gave no consideration to the innocent misrepresentation exception. I disagree. [ 26 ] In the GCMS notes, the Officer acknowledges that the consultant did not provide the Applicant with any application details such as what documents were submitted. While the Officer comments that it was unfortunate the Applicant experienced difficulties with the consultant, the Officer states that the Applicant should have initially questioned the consultant for more information and application details. The Officer further notes that there is no use of representative form on file and states that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to determine the consultant’s integrity and genuineness. The Officer observes that if the documents had not been verified, they could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA and concludes that, on a balance of probabilities, the Applicant is a foreign national who is inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA . I find nothing unreasonable in these determinations in the Applicant’s circumstances. [ 27 ] In my view, the Officer’s reasons highlight the Applicant’s lack of due diligence in retaining the consultant and in reviewing what was submitted to [NAME] on the Applicant’s behalf. I agree with the Respondent’s submission that because the Applicant consulted multiple consultants who advised him that it was not possible to obtain the work permit he sought, this compounded the need for due diligence on his part. The Applicant’s lack of due diligence means that the Officer was not required to address the Applicant’s asserted innocent misrepresentation or mistake: [NAME] , above at paras 29-30.

IV. Conclusion [ 28 ] For the reasons above, I am not persuaded that the Decision is unreasonable. The judicial review application therefore will be dismissed. [ 29 ] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for possible certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7258-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge Annex “A” : Relevant Provisions Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c.

27) Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés (L.C. 2001, ch.

27) Misrepresentation Fausses déclarations 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation 40 (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour fausses déclarations les faits suivants : (a) 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 this Act; a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi; […] […] Application Application (2) The following provisions govern subsection (1): (2) Les dispositions suivantes s’appliquent au paragraphe (1) : (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced; and a) l’interdiction de territoire court pour les cinq ans suivant la décision la constatant en dernier ressort, si le résident permanent ou l’étranger n’est pas au pays, ou suivant l’exécution de la mesure de renvoi; (b) paragraph (1)(b) does not apply unless the Minister is satisfied that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility. b) l’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique que si le ministre est convaincu que les faits en cause justifient l’interdiction. FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7258-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: June 24, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: June 29, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent