Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325 : Spousal Sponsorship Applicant Remains Inadmissible Following Earlier Misrepresentation Finding

In Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325, the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the Spousal Sponsorship Class. The Applicant challenged the refusal on the basis that the Officer had improperly relied on an earlier finding of misrepresentation concerning his Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application. The Court held that the Applicant could not use the spousal sponsorship proceeding to indirectly challenge the earlier misrepresentation finding, which had not itself been judicially reviewed.

Key Principle

Under subsection 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), a foreign national is inadmissible for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts that could induce an error in the administration of the Act. A finding under section 40 results in a five-year period of inadmissibility under subsection 40(2)(a). Where a prior misrepresentation finding has already been made and was not challenged by judicial review, an applicant cannot collaterally attack that finding through a subsequent immigration application.

Background

The Applicant, a Kenyan citizen, married his Canadian citizen spouse in Kenya on December 28, 2022. He subsequently obtained a multiple-entry visitor visa and travelled to Canada in December 2023. Before his travel, however, IRCC had advised him that there were reasonable grounds to believe he had failed to disclose that his TRV application had been facilitated by a paid representative. His visitor visa was cancelled, and a finding of misrepresentation was subsequently made on January 9, 2024.

The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Spousal Sponsorship Class on January 9, 2024. His application was refused on October 8, 2024 because of the prior misrepresentation finding, which resulted in a five-year period of inadmissibility. The Applicant argued that he was not required to disclose information concerning the person who assisted with his TRV application and that his circumstances and explanation should have been reconsidered.

Court Findings

• The Prior Misrepresentation Finding Could Not Be Reopened

The Court held that the Applicant’s arguments concerning whether he was required to disclose the representative and whether his explanation was adequate amounted to a collateral attack on the January 9, 2024 decision. The Applicant had an opportunity to seek judicial review of that decision but did not do so. The Officer considering the subsequent spousal sponsorship application therefore had no jurisdiction to reconsider the earlier misrepresentation finding.

• The Five-Year Inadmissibility Period Applied

Because the prior misrepresentation finding remained valid, the Applicant continued to be inadmissible for five years. The Court found that the Officer reasonably relied on that existing inadmissibility when refusing the permanent residence application. The consequences of the misrepresentation finding, even though they affected the Applicant’s spouse and child, did not make the subsequent refusal unreasonable.

• Applicants Bear Responsibility for Representation

The Court also noted that applicants are generally responsible for the consequences arising from their choice of representation. The existence of a representative does not, by itself, remove responsibility for information submitted in an immigration application.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the Applicant’s spousal sponsorship application. No question was certified, and no costs were awarded. The decision reinforces that a prior misrepresentation finding must be challenged directly and cannot ordinarily be attacked indirectly through a later immigration application.

Case Citation:

Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325 (CanLII)