Introduction
The Federal Court
reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Family
Class (Spousal Sponsorship). The application was refused because the applicant
was found to be excluded from the family class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations after her sponsor failed
to declare their marriage during his own permanent residence process. The Court
held that IRCC breached procedural fairness by issuing its decision before the
expiry of the 30-day response period provided in the Procedural Fairness Letter
(PFL), thereby depriving the applicant of a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Key Principle
The Federal Court
reaffirmed that where IRCC provides an applicant with a specified period to
respond to a Procedural Fairness Letter, it must honour that timeline. Issuing
a refusal before the response deadline expires constitutes a breach of
procedural fairness unless the outcome is truly inevitable. A reviewing court
will not assume inevitability where additional submissions could have affected
the decision.
Background
The applicant, a
citizen of India, married her sponsor in January 2023 after he had received
confirmation that he had become a permanent resident through Express Entry. The
sponsor’s former immigration consultant mistakenly advised him that he did not
need to notify IRCC of his change in marital status before completing the
permanent residence process.
IRCC later issued
a Procedural Fairness Letter advising that the applicant appeared to be
excluded from the family class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations
because she had not been declared or examined during the sponsor’s permanent
residence application. The letter expressly provided the applicant with 30 days
to submit additional information.
However, only 15
days after issuing the PFL, and before the response period had expired, IRCC
refused the application. The applicant subsequently sought judicial review.
Court Findings
• Applicant
Was Denied a Meaningful Opportunity to Respond
The Court found
that IRCC breached its duty of procedural fairness by rendering its decision
before the expiry of the 30-day response period promised in the PFL. Having
invited further submissions, the officer was required to wait until the
deadline had passed before making a final determination.
• Outcome Was
Not Inevitable
The Respondent
argued that returning the matter for reconsideration would serve no purpose
because the sponsor had failed to disclose the marriage. The Court rejected
this submission, finding that additional information contained in letters
prepared before the response deadline could have been considered by the
officer. Accordingly, it could not be said that the outcome was inevitable.
• Procedural
Fairness Was Dispositive
Because the
procedural fairness breach alone required the decision to be set aside, the
Court found it unnecessary to consider whether the refusal itself was
substantively reasonable.
Outcome
The Federal Court
granted the application for judicial review and set aside IRCC’s refusal. The
Court held that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness because the
decision was issued before the expiry of the response period promised in the
Procedural Fairness Letter. No question was certified.
Case Citation: Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212 (CanLII)
