Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 824 : Interlocutory Injunction, Irreparable Harm, and Non-Interference with Ongoing Immigration Proceedings

Background

Jing Wang sought judicial review of a visa officer’s decision refusing his work permit application on the basis of misrepresentation under section 40 of IRPA, resulting in a five-year inadmissibility finding.

While that judicial review was pending, Mr. Wang brought a motion asking the Federal Court to intervene in his wife’s separate immigration matters. He sought orders preventing the Minister from relying on his inadmissibility to negatively affect his wife’s Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program permanent residence application, requiring her PR application to remain open, and extending her work permit until his litigation was resolved.

The Court dismissed the motion.

Legal Test for an Injunction

The Court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General):

1. There must be a serious issue to be tried;
2. The applicant must demonstrate irreparable harm if the injunction is refused; and
3. The balance of convenience must favour granting the injunction.

The test is conjunctive, meaning all three requirements must be satisfied.

The Court emphasized that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy, particularly where the applicant seeks to prevent an administrative decision-maker from carrying out statutory responsibilities.

Serious Issue

Mr. Wang’s underlying judicial review concerned his own work permit refusal and misrepresentation finding.

The relief requested in the motion concerned his wife’s separate PR and work permit applications. Those proceedings were not the subject of his judicial review.

The Court therefore found that the requested relief did not raise a serious issue connected to the underlying application.

The Court also relied on the principle of judicial non-interference with ongoing administrative proceedings. Courts generally should not stop an immigration decision-maker from completing an administrative process before a final decision has been made.

➢ Irreparable Harm

The Court held that irreparable harm must be real, definite and unavoidable, rather than hypothetical or speculative.

Mr. Wang’s wife stated that her application “will be refused,” but there was no detailed evidence establishing that refusal was certain or demonstrating the specific harm that would result.

The Court found this was speculation about possible future administrative decisions.

Importantly, if her immigration applications were eventually refused, she would have access to the Federal Court to challenge those decisions.

Balance of Convenience

The Court found that the balance strongly favoured the Minister.

Mr. Wang was asking the Court to interfere with ongoing statutory decision-making concerning his wife’s immigration applications. The public interest in allowing administrative decision-makers to perform their statutory functions weighed heavily against granting the injunction.

Practical Significance

This case is useful for the proposition that:

• speculative future immigration consequences generally do not establish irreparable harm;
• injunction evidence must be specific and concrete;
• a motion must relate to the proceeding actually before the Court; and
• Federal Court will generally avoid interfering with an ongoing IRCC or provincial immigration process before a final decision is made.

Outcome

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. No costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 824 (CanLII)