Court Slams IRCC for Breaching Settlement, Awards $10,000 in Costs
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1615
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-10812-23
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Gomez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1615
The applicant sought judicial review after the Minister refused to redetermine her Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. This refusal was a direct violation of a settlement agreement reached years earlier, where the government claimed the applicant failed to file a formal Notice of Discontinuance, despite her counsel orally discontinuing the matter in court.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Minister's refusal to honor the settlement was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and constituted 'egregious conduct'. The Court ordered the H&C application to be redetermined and awarded a rare lump-sum cost of $10,000 against the Minister.
Key Quote from the Court
Staying silent and relying on what she believed to be a mistake by opposing counsel, knowing that Ms. Lozada Gomez would thereby be deprived of the benefit of either a Court order granting her judicial review application or a negotiated settlement, after having explicitly conceded to opposing counsel that the decision under review was procedurally unfair, would be unethical and would not be countenanced by this Court.
Expert Takeaways
-
Settlement Agreements are Binding Contracts This decision confirms that settlement agreements with the Department of Justice are enforceable contracts. The government cannot renege on its obligations years later by citing minor procedural technicalities that it implicitly accepted at the time.
-
Oral Discontinuance in Court is Valid While filing a formal Notice of Discontinuance is standard practice, this case shows that a clear, on-the-record oral discontinuance in the presence of both parties' counsel can satisfy a settlement term, especially when the opposing counsel acts on it.
-
Counsel's Conduct Matters The Court heavily criticized the government counsel's conduct as 'sharp practice.' Lawyers have an ethical duty not to take advantage of minor slips by opposing counsel. Such behavior can lead to severe judicial rebuke and significant cost awards.
-
Document Everything and Follow Up For applicants, this case is a crucial reminder to ensure all settlement terms are formally documented (e.g., filing a notice, amending the style of cause) and to proactively follow up on agreed-upon actions like redeterminations to avoid lengthy delays.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Your window to challenge is closing.
Judicial review of an IRCC refusal is time-sensitive. Book a consultation before your deadline.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) Grounds rulings
Court Upholds Deportation for Serious Criminality Despite H&C Claims
Federal Court: Minister Cannot Unilaterally Withdraw Evidence From Court Record
Federal Court: 'Better Life in Canada' Not Grounds for H&C Approval
Federal Court: Assertions Are Not Evidence in H&C Applications
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)