CHARANJIT KAUR v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 628
An applicant for permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider Class had her application refused after an officer determined the offer of employment was not genuine. The officer was not convinced that a family genuinely required a full-time caregiver for their children, who were 16 and 18 years old by the time of the final decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden was on the applicant to provide specific, convincing reasons why a 16.5-year-old youth would still require a full-time caregiver.
Military Police Complaints Commission v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 FC 626
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) applied for judicial review, seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) to disclose materials related to conduct complaints. The central issue was whether the CFPM had a legal duty to disclose these documents to the MPCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding no legal duty for the CFPM to disclose the materials. The Court ruled that internal investigations of conduct complaints by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) are administrative in nature and do not constitute 'policing duties or functions' under the National Defence Act, thus falling outside the MPCC's jurisdiction.
Yilmaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 625
The applicants, who had been granted refugee protection from Türkiye, had their status ceased by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after they returned to Türkiye on three separate occasions. They argued the trips were necessary and not truly voluntary.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicants had voluntarily reavailed themselves of their home country's protection, despite one of them being arrested upon return.
Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 618
The applicant's permanent residence application as a Convention Refugee Abroad was refused. The officer relied on uncited "open source" information to conclude that forcible recruitment by Al-Shabaab was not "common," and failed to address the applicant's personal experience of forcible recruitment.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision lacked justification and transparency. The Court ruled that relying on secret evidence, applying the wrong legal test for risk, and ignoring the applicant's key arguments were all fatal errors.
Barry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 621
The applicant, claiming to be from Guinea, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds after her refugee claim was refused. The officer rejected the H&C application due to unresolved identity issues, as biometric evidence strongly suggested she was a French citizen with a different name and age.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that fundamental doubts about an applicant's identity permissibly and logically impact the entire assessment of H&C factors, including establishment in Canada and alleged hardship.
Sherkhil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 615
An Afghan national who served as an interpreter for the Canadian Armed Forces had his permanent residence application refused. The immigration officer cited multiple inconsistencies regarding the applicant's personal and employment history, raising serious concerns about his truthfulness.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court held that the applicant's claim that the officer misinterpreted evidence was merely a 'bald allegation' unsupported by any specific proof.
Ghasedi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 608
The Applicant, a grandmother from Iran, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds to support her daughter, who suffers from depression, and her autistic grandson. An immigration officer refused the application, finding her establishment in Canada was limited and her support, while positive, was not essential enough to warrant an H&C exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers are entitled to weigh the evidence presented, and in this case, the officer properly considered all factors before concluding they did not meet the high threshold for H&C relief.
Prakash Kumta Mohandas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 606
An applicant, after facing four work permit refusals, challenged the latest decision at the Federal Court. The government's lawyers agreed the refusal was unreasonable and asked the Court to send it back for redetermination, but argued against any special instructions or awarding legal costs to the applicant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the unreasonable refusal. However, it sided with the government, ruling that the applicant's history of multiple refusals, even if based on similar errors, did not constitute the 'exceptional circumstances' or 'endless merry-go-round' required to issue special directions or award costs.
Gupta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 604
After the Federal Court dismissed his judicial review of a temporary resident visa refusal, the Applicant filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its own decision. He claimed the judge failed to consider his main arguments and evidence.
The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, reinforcing that this legal tool has a very narrow purpose. It is intended to correct minor oversights or inconsistencies, not to re-evaluate the merits of the case or serve as a substitute for an appeal.
Ayaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 598
An applicant for permanent residence had his application rejected as incomplete because his spouse's police certificate was dated before her last declared residence in the UK. The applicant blamed his immigration consultant for entering incorrect dates in the address history.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to reject the application was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can rely on the information provided in an application form, and the applicant is ultimately responsible for its accuracy, even when using a representative.
