Vasilev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 716
Russian citizens applying for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) were refused after an immigration officer alleged they submitted a fraudulent bank statement. The officer concluded this amounted to misrepresentation, making them inadmissible to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that the Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) sent to the applicants was too general, failing to specify the exact concern (an altered balance), thus denying them a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Beygmohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 712
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for a spousal open work permit. She inadvertently failed to upload key documents proving her spouse's employment in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, finding she had not satisfied the requirements.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It affirmed that immigration officers have no obligation to notify an applicant about missing documents or to request additional information, even if the application references those documents. The onus is entirely on the applicant to submit a complete file.
Khani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 703
An Iranian national's work permit application was refused because an officer found her financial situation, and that of her spouse in Canada, insufficient to support her family and ensure her departure. The officer specifically noted an unexplained large deposit and that the spouse's income fell below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can assess an applicant's entire financial picture, including the source of funds and using LICO as a benchmark, and are not required to give applicants an opportunity to address deficiencies in their evidence.
Thampirasa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 707
The applicant, a Tamil male from Sri Lanka, applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) based on his personal history of torture and detention. The PRRA Officer refused the application, disregarding the applicant's sworn affidavit and selectively using country condition reports to downplay the risks.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that an officer cannot simply ignore an applicant's sworn personal testimony or 'cherry-pick' documentary evidence to support a refusal.
Irhivboje v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 708
An asylum seeker from Nigeria had his refugee claim refused based on credibility issues. He appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) with new evidence, including a video and a bail document concerning his wife's arrest, but the RAD refused to admit the evidence and dismissed the appeal.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to reject the key pieces of new evidence was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the evidence should have been considered together and, given the credibility issues it raised, the RAD erred by not holding an oral hearing to assess it.
Attal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 711
The Applicant sought judicial review of a temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal. The government conceded the officer made an error by overlooking updated documents, but the parties disputed the terms for the new decision, with the Applicant wanting the new officer to specify any deficiencies.
The Court granted the judicial review and ordered a redetermination by a new officer. However, it sided with the government, affirming the legal principle that the onus is always on the applicant to provide a complete and satisfactory application; a visa officer has no duty to identify deficiencies or request specific documents.
Nofallah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 713
An Iranian citizen residing in the Philippines applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit her sister in Canada. An immigration officer refused the application, concluding she would not leave Canada due to her family ties in Canada and allegedly weak ties and financial establishment outside of Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or grapple with significant evidence provided by the applicant that contradicted the officer's negative conclusions about her family and financial ties.
1048547 Ontario Inc. v. Fromfroid S.A., 2026 FCA 108
This case involves an assessment of legal costs following a dismissed appeal. The successful party (the respondent) made a formal settlement offer before the appeal hearing, which the appellant rejected. The respondent sought to have its legal costs paid by the appellant, arguing for a higher rate and a doubling of costs due to the rejected offer.
The Federal Court of Appeal's Assessment Officer awarded costs at the high end of the allowable range, recognizing the complexity of the issues. More importantly, the Officer doubled the costs incurred after the settlement offer was made, significantly increasing the total amount payable by the losing party.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 710
A family from India sought judicial review after the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the rejection of their refugee claim. Their claim was based on a fear of police persecution, but the RAD found their story and evidence were not credible.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while refugee claimants are presumed to be truthful about facts, this presumption does not extend to their speculations or deductions about who caused their harm.
A.D.C. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 709
The Applicant filed for a mandamus order to compel a decision on their permanent residence application after an eight-year delay. Although IRCC granted permanent residence, making the mandamus moot, the Applicant sought over $23,000 in legal costs, arguing the delay constituted 'special reasons'.
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant's motion for costs. The Court affirmed the high legal threshold for awarding costs in immigration matters, ruling that even a significant delay, on its own, does not automatically meet the 'special reasons' test required by the Rules.
