Star Blanket First Nation v. Kawacatoose First Nation, 2026 FCA 8
This case involves the assessment of legal costs following two related judicial review applications that were heard together. The applicant, who lost the judicial reviews, challenged the amount of costs being claimed by the successful respondent, arguing that costs should be reduced because the work was duplicated across two files.
The Federal Court of Appeal's Assessment Officer largely sided with the successful respondent, confirming that when the Court issues separate cost awards for related files, the winning party is entitled to recover costs for each file, even if the hearings were held jointly. However, the Officer adjusted specific claims, such as reducing printing fees and disallowing costs for a third counsel.
Kuznetsov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 57
The applicant sponsored her mother under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP) but failed to include all required family information. After IRCC issued a detailed request for the missing information, the applicant resubmitted forms that were still incomplete, leading IRCC to return the entire application as unprocessed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding IRCC's decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that IRCC is not obligated to issue multiple warnings; one clear opportunity to correct deficiencies is sufficient.
Guilavogui v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CF 47
A Guinean citizen, whose refugee claim was refused based on credibility, sought an administrative stay of her removal from a CBSA officer. For the first time, she raised a fear of female genital mutilation (FGM), which was not part of her original asylum claim.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision to refuse the stay was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while officers must consider new risks, they can weigh the timing and context, especially when linked to previous negative credibility findings.
11043277 CANADA INC. v The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2026 FC 54
A trucking company's application for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) was refused by an ESDC officer. The refusal was based on the officer's findings that the job offer was not genuine due to inconsistencies in the company's fleet size and that the requirement for 13+ years of experience was excessive and deterred Canadian applicants.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that employers cannot use the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to set job requirements that exceed industry standards without strong justification, and that providing inconsistent evidence undermines an application's credibility.
Odobo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49
The applicant sought a work permit based on a valid Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). A visa officer refused the application, finding the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation based on the officer's own online investigation into the employer's genuineness, despite the positive LMIA.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose the specific details of their concerns to the applicant. The Court also found the decision unreasonable for failing to acknowledge and grapple with the contradictory evidence of the valid LMIA issued by ESDC.
Armstrong Elorh Mbi Atem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 53
The applicant, a Cameroonian national and Anglophone separatist activist, sought refugee protection. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the refusal of his claim, finding his allegations of past persecution not credible and concluding he was not at risk based on his political activities in Canada (a 'sur place' claim).
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD failed to properly assess the applicant's 'sur place' risk by ignoring contradictory country condition evidence and by making incoherent findings about his activist profile.
Lee v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 32
The applicant, a South Korean citizen with a long history of compliance with Canadian immigration laws, was found inadmissible and issued an exclusion order. The border officer concluded he intended to stay permanently, despite evidence of a planned 4-month visit and his frank disclosure of considering a future permanent residence application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court reinforced the principle of 'dual intent,' clarifying that an intention to apply for permanent residence in the future does not automatically mean a person will overstay their temporary status.
A journalist requested access to confidential court communications regarding the appointment of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a high-profile national security case. The core issue was whether the constitutional open court principle required the disclosure of these administrative emails to the public.
The Federal Court denied the journalist's request, ruling that the public interest in ensuring the court can make fully informed and confidential administrative decisions, like appointing an amicus, outweighs the public's right to access in this specific context.
Jimenez Danda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 26
The applicant, a Mexican citizen, sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). Her initial family refugee claim was refused on credibility grounds, and her PRRA, based on the same alleged cartel risks plus new personal circumstances, was also refused for failing to establish a personalized risk.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a PRRA is not an appeal of a prior refugee decision and that applicants must provide sufficient evidence to establish a personalized risk, as general country conditions are not enough.
Agyemang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30
A Ghanaian citizen's study permit was refused for misrepresentation after an officer concluded she submitted two fraudulent financial documents. One of the allegedly fraudulent documents was provided in response to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) from the immigration office.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was procedurally unfair. The Court ruled that a high standard of fairness applies to all misrepresentation findings, which requires full disclosure of an officer's concerns and any external evidence used against the applicant.
