Nicole John

The applicants sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing their temporary resident visas and finding them inadmissible for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of the IRPA for failing to disclose a prior US visa overstay.

The applicants had raised the innocent mistake exception in response to a procedural fairness letter.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the officer failed to justify the decision by failing to meaningfully assess or engage with the applicants' evidence and submissions on the innocent mistake exception.

The self-represented applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to process his permanent resident application, which had been pending for over 40 months.

The Federal Court found the delay to be unreasonable, noting that the standard processing time is 12 months and the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory justification for periods of inactivity.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, the Court granted the application and ordered the Minister to process the application within 90 days.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision refusing his work permit application under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The officer found the applicant lacked sufficient experience to perform the proposed work as a meat cutter and concluded he would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

The Court held the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to address material evidence confirming the applicant's experience, focusing instead on a single undated letter while ignoring multiple other sources.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his third application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, alleging procedural unfairness due to the negligence of his former immigration consultant.

The Federal Court found that the applicant failed to comply with the Court's protocol regarding allegations against former representatives, specifically by not serving the order granting leave.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the high threshold for establishing incompetent representation, as the alleged omissions were not proven to likely alter the decision's outcome.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.