Court Orders IRCC to Pay Costs After Repeating Same Error in Three PRRA Refusals
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1952
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-23824-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Salem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1952
The applicant was forced to seek judicial review three separate times after immigration officers repeatedly refused his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application. In all three decisions, the officers made the identical legal error of failing to assess the applicant's risk of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court found that the government's conduct-making the same error three times and forcing the applicant to incur significant legal fees-constituted 'special reasons' justifying an award of costs. The Court ordered the Minister to pay the applicant $3,000, setting a precedent that repeated, unreasonable errors can have financial consequences for the government.
Key Quote from the Court
I agree that an error by a decision-maker below is not a “special reason” sufficient to justify costs. However, where there are three decision-makers below that have made the same error necessitating three separate ALJRs plus a motion to stay a removal, costs may be justified. This, in combination with the timing of the settlement... constitutes 'special reasons' to order costs.
Expert Takeaways
-
A Pattern of Errors Can Justify Costs While a single mistake by an officer rarely leads to a costs award, this case shows that a documented pattern of the same error across multiple decisions can meet the high 'special reasons' threshold.
-
Late Settlements May Strengthen a Costs Argument The Respondent only conceded the error after the applicant had prepared and filed his final arguments. The Court considered this late timing as a factor that unreasonably prolonged the proceedings and contributed to the costs award.
-
Persistence in Litigation is Crucial This case highlights the importance of persistently challenging flawed decisions. By pursuing judicial review for each incorrect refusal, the applicant built a record of the Respondent's repeated failures, which was essential for the final costs order.
-
Hold the Government Accountable Applicants who face multiple, identical refusals should not assume it's a lost cause. This ruling serves as a powerful tool to argue for costs and hold the government accountable for systemic or repeated failures in decision-making.
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.
Refusal letter in hand?
Don't accept an unfair decision — explore your judicial review options with our team.
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 Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) rulings
Federal Court: Winning Judicial Review Doesn't Guarantee Legal Costs
Court: Officers Can't Demand 'Exact' Details While Ignoring Real Refugee Risk
Federal Court: Refusal Based on "Insufficient Evidence" is a Credibility Finding
Federal Court Overturns PRRA Refusal for Relying on Outdated Country Information
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)