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.
ProSlide Technology Inc. v. Whitewater West Industries, Ltd., 2026 FCA 109
This decision addresses the awarding of legal costs following an appeal in a complex patent infringement case. While the appellant (ProSlide) succeeded in restoring the validity of some patents, the respondent (Whitewater) ultimately won on the core issue of non-infringement.
The Federal Court of Appeal ordered the appellant, ProSlide, to pay $25,000 in costs to Whitewater. The Court determined that successfully defending against the primary allegation of patent infringement was the more significant, 'overarching victory,' justifying an award of costs despite the appellant's partial success on other issues.
Kumingi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 698
An applicant from the Democratic Republic of Congo sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The refusal was based on the officer's doubts about the family relationship with the financial sponsor (the applicant's father).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, deeming it moot. The Court found that because IRCC had already reconsidered and issued a new, third decision, there was no longer a live controversy regarding the decision under review.
Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 697
A work permit applicant was refused and found inadmissible for misrepresentation. The officer concluded the applicant could not perform the job duties and that the job offer from a car repair shop was not genuine due to the employer's perceived financial inability.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. The Court ruled that the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the officer's core concerns, which were only raised at the end of the interview.
Duhar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 699
An elderly widowed mother, in Canada for a decade and deeply integrated with her children's and grandchildren's lives, was denied permanent residence on H&C grounds. The officer gave her establishment 'neutral weight' because it was centered on her family.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply dismiss deep, family-based establishment and must assess an applicant's unique, real-life circumstances.
