Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 422 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Where Sponsored Spouse Failed to Disclose Material Breakdown in Marital Relationship Before Landing

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision upholding a finding of misrepresentation against a permanent resident who had entered Canada through spousal sponsorship.

Shortly before travelling to Canada, the applicant’s husband told her not to come and indicated that he wanted nothing further to do with her. She nevertheless landed as a permanent resident without disclosing this development. The Court upheld the IAD’s conclusion that the change in the marital relationship was material information that had to be disclosed.

Key Principle

Misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of IRPA does not generally require intention, dishonesty, or mens rea.

There is a narrow exception where an applicant can establish that they honestly and reasonably believed they were not withholding or misrepresenting a material fact. Both elements matter:

• the belief must have actually been held; and
• the belief must also have been objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

This exception applies only in exceptional circumstances. Applicants remain subject to a broad duty of candour and must disclose material changes affecting their immigration eligibility.

Background

The applicant entered into an arranged marriage with a Canadian citizen who subsequently sponsored her for permanent residence.

Their relationship involved repeated arguments during which the husband threatened to cancel the sponsorship. Shortly before the applicant travelled to Canada, however, another serious dispute occurred. Her husband told her not to come to Canada, told her father that he wanted nothing more to do with her, and reportedly cancelled her airline ticket.

The applicant nonetheless travelled to Canada and became a permanent resident without informing the immigration officer of these events. She believed the argument was another temporary marital dispute and noted that her husband had not formally withdrawn the sponsorship.

Years later, an exclusion order was issued based on misrepresentation. The IAD upheld both the legal validity of the removal order and the refusal of H&C relief.

Court Findings

The Court upheld the IAD’s interpretation of section 40.

The IAD correctly recognized that misrepresentation does not need to be deliberate and that the honest and reasonable belief exception is narrow. It specifically considered whether the applicant genuinely and reasonably believed that her marriage and sponsorship remained intact.

The Court found that the IAD reasonably concluded that the final dispute was materially different from the couple’s previous arguments. The husband had expressly told the applicant not to come to Canada, involved both families in the dispute, told her father that the relationship was over, and subsequently avoided contact with her.

Although the husband himself did not withdraw the sponsorship and also had obligations to disclose the change in the relationship, his failure did not eliminate the applicant’s own duty of candour.

The applicant argued that, because her husband had frequently made similar threats in the past, she honestly believed this dispute would also pass. The Court held that this amounted to disagreement with the IAD’s assessment of the evidence. The IAD had heard her testimony and reasonably concluded that the circumstances were sufficiently serious that she could not rely on the narrow honest and reasonable belief exception.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the IAD’s finding that the applicant had failed to disclose a material change in her marital relationship and had therefore committed misrepresentation.

Case Citation:

Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 422 CanLII