Biogénie Canada inc. v. Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments, 2026 CF 413
The applicant, Biogénie, filed for judicial review after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) extended the deadline to respond to an Access to Information request by over eight years. This request was crucial for Biogénie's ongoing litigation against the CFIA, which had seized some of its products.
The Federal Court granted the application in part, finding the CFIA's and the Information Commissioner's proposed multi-year extensions unreasonable. The Court ordered the CFIA to provide a full response within six months, emphasizing that government bodies must provide rigorous, logical, and sustainable justifications for any significant delays.
Logan Somers-Edgar, et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 417
The Applicants sought judicial review after their permanent residence application under the Parents and Grandparents Program was refused for being incomplete. The refusal stemmed from their misunderstanding of a vague IRCC letter requesting proof of relationship between the 'Dependant' and 'Principal Applicant,' which they interpreted as a request for the son's birth certificate, not the parents' marriage certificate.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the process was tainted by procedural unfairness. The Court ruled that IRCC's correspondence was actively misleading to a lay person and that it is IRCC's responsibility to provide clear instructions that do not require legal expertise to understand.
Shergill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 419
An Indian mother and daughter were refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit family in Canada. The visa officer concluded their finances were insufficient and they lacked significant family ties outside Canada, making their visit inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to transparently engage with and justify ignoring contrary evidence on the record, such as the applicants' tax returns, business interests, and close family ties in India.
Ruchika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 414
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Trades Class was refused. The officer concluded she lacked the required two years of work experience, citing an inconsistency where she declared herself a 'housewife' on a prior TRV application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or provide reasons for rejecting crucial evidence—a detailed affidavit from the applicant explaining her work duties—that contradicted the officer's conclusion.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 422
The applicant, an international student, sought judicial review after an IRCC officer refused his Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) and restoration of status applications. The refusal was based on the fact that he had not maintained full-time student status for every academic session, specifically being part-time during the Winter 2019 and Fall 2023 terms.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the requirement to maintain full-time status for PGWP eligibility is strict, and studying on a part-time basis is not equivalent to an 'authorized leave from studies,' which is a specific exception.
Ahmadzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 412
The applicant and his mother were refused permanent residence under a public policy for Afghan nationals because they did not meet its conditions. Their request for an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds was also denied by the immigration officer.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, upholding the officer's decision based on the legal principle of judicial comity. The Court noted that an identical application from the applicant's mother, raising the same arguments, had already been dismissed in a prior Federal Court decision.
Torres Ponce v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 406
A refugee claimant from Mexico alleged a fear of persecution from the Los Zetas cartel and his father-in-law. His claim was refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant omissions and inconsistencies, particularly new core allegations introduced very late in the process.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's negative credibility assessment was reasonable. The Court affirmed that making significant, late-stage amendments to central aspects of a claim can justify a decision-maker drawing a negative inference about the claimant's truthfulness.
Batchato v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 398
An applicant from Cameroon sought permanent residence as a Federal Skilled Worker. His application was refused because the immigration officer was not satisfied that his claimed work experience was genuine, primarily due to his failure to provide requested proof of registration with Cameroon's national social security fund (CNPS).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is on the applicant to provide all requested evidence to prove their eligibility, and the officer was justified in refusing the application due to insufficient proof of authentic employment.
Shaterhosseini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 391
The applicant, a citizen of Iran, was denied a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit his common-law spouse and children in Vancouver. The immigration officer determined that the applicant's significant family ties in Canada created a strong 'pull' factor, raising doubts that he would leave at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that even if an applicant has family ties in their home country, the presence of immediate family in Canada can be a rational basis for a visa refusal.
Farajollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 390
An accomplished plastic surgeon from Iran and his minor daughter were refused Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to visit family in Canada. The officer concluded they would not leave, citing family ties in Canada and dismissing their significant ties to Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable and unintelligible. The Court ruled the officer completely failed to justify their conclusions or engage with critical evidence, such as the applicants' strong professional lives, family, and past travel compliance.
