Devi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 328 : PR Refusal Set Aside Where Consultant Negligence Prevented DNA Testing and Timely Review

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of permanent residence applications made by a mother and her three children, who were dependants of a Canadian PR and protected person. The applications were refused after the family failed to respond to a procedural fairness letter requesting DNA testing. The Court granted judicial review because their former immigration consultant’s negligence deprived them of the opportunity to complete the testing and delayed their knowledge of the refusal for several years.

Key Principle

Ineffective representation may amount to a breach of natural justice where the applicant proves both deficient professional performance and resulting prejudice. Where a representative fails to communicate a procedural fairness request, prevents applicants from responding to the sole concern underlying a refusal, and fails to notify them of the refusal itself, the resulting miscarriage of justice may justify setting the decision aside.

Background

The applicants applied for PR together with the principal applicant’s spouse and father of the children, who later became a Canadian PR as a protected person. IRCC questioned whether the claimed family relationships were established and offered the applicants an opportunity to complete DNA testing. No response was received, and the applications were refused in 2017. The applicants maintained that they only learned of the refusals in January 2022.

Court Findings

• Former Consultant Had a Sufficient Opportunity to Respond

Although current counsel did not strictly follow the Court’s protocol for allegations against former representatives before commencing judicial review, the Court accepted that exceptional circumstances justified the timing. The consultant was later notified of the allegations and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, satisfying the protocol in substance.

• Consultant’s Conduct Fell Below Professional Standards

The applicants relied on the consultant to communicate with IRCC regarding their PR applications. The consultant failed to advise IRCC that the applicants were willing to undergo DNA testing and failed to ensure compliance with the procedural fairness request. The Court found this conduct fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance.

• Consultant’s Negligence Caused Serious Prejudice

The failure to respond to the DNA request was the sole reason the PR applications were refused. The consultant’s conduct therefore deprived the applicants of an opportunity to answer the officer’s concern and potentially establish their family relationship through objective testing.

• Failure to Communicate the Refusal Also Compromised Judicial Review Rights

The consultant also failed to notify the applicants that their applications had been refused. This prevented them from promptly pursuing judicial review and contributed to an almost five-year delay before the refusal was challenged. The Court found this further supported a miscarriage of justice.

• Evidence Supported the Applicants’ Lack of Knowledge

The Court accepted that the family did not know about the 2017 refusal until January 2022. The Canadian sponsor had lost access to the Yahoo email account originally used and continued contacting IRCC for updates, conduct inconsistent with knowledge that the applications had already been refused.

• Redetermination Allowed the Core Issue to Be Properly Tested

The Court noted that the practical result of granting judicial review would be straightforward: the applicants could complete DNA testing with the Canadian sponsor. The results could then objectively confirm or disprove the claimed family relationship, subject to any other admissibility concerns.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review because the consultant’s negligence resulted in a miscarriage of justice. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

 

Case Citation:

Devi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 328 (CanLII)

Visit our Social Media:

CATEGORIES

Case Law Library (1033)Case Law Update - January 2026 (13)Case Law Update - February 2026 (9)Case Law Update - March 2026 (12)Case Law Update - April 2026 (9)Case Law Update - May 2016 (7)Case Law Update - May 2018 (4)Case Law Update - May 2019 (3)Case Law Update - May 2020 (4)Case Law Update - May 2021 (6)Case Law Update - May 2022 (10)Case Law Update - May 2023 (10)Case Law Update - May 2024 (13)Case Law Update - May 2026 (10)Case Law Update – May 2025 (18)Case Law Update - June 2026 (24)Case Law Update - Apr. 2016 (8)Case Law Update - Apr. 2018 (7)Case Law Update - Apr. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Apr. 2020 (8)Case Law Update - Apr. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Aug. 2016 (3)Case Law Update - Aug. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Aug. 2019 (4)Case Law Update - Aug. 2020 (5)Case Law Update - Aug. 2021 (8)Case Law Update - Aug. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Aug. 2024 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2026 (8)Case Law Update - Dec. 2018 (7)Case Law Update - Dec. 2019 (5)Case Law Update - Dec. 2020 (5)Case Law Update - Dec. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Dec. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Dec. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Dec. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2016 (7)Case Law Update - Feb. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Feb. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Feb. 2020 (7)Case Law Update - Feb. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Feb. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2023 (14)Case Law Update - Feb. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jan. 2016 (7)Case Law Update - Jan. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Jan. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Jan. 2020 (11)Case Law Update - Jan. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Jan. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jan. 2023 (9)Case Law Update - Jan. 2024 (13)Case Law Update - Jul. 2016 (13)Case Law Update - Jul. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Jul. 2019 (7)Case Law Update - Jul. 2020 (4)Case Law Update - Jul. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Jul. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jul. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Jul. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2025 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2026 (13)Case Law Update - Jun. 2016 (4)Case Law Update - Jun. 2018 (6)Case Law Update - Jun. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Jun. 2020 (4)Case Law Update - Jun. 2021 (14)Case Law Update - Jun. 2022 (9)Case Law Update - Jun. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Jun. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jun. 2025 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2016 (7)Case Law Update - Mar. 2018 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2019 (8)Case Law Update - Mar. 2020 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2021 (2)Case Law Update - Mar. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Mar. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Mar. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Nov. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Nov. 2019 (5)Case Law Update - Nov. 2020 (2)Case Law Update - Nov. 2021 (11)Case Law Update - Nov. 2023 (12)Case Law Update - Nov. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Nov. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Oct. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Oct. 2019 (8)Case Law Update - Oct. 2020 (1)Case Law Update - Oct. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Oct. 2025 (13)Case Law Update - Sep. 2016 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Sep. 2019 (7)Case Law Update - Sep. 2020 (3)Case Law Update - Sep. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Sep. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Sep. 2025 (17)Case Law Update - Sep. 2026 (13)Case Law Update – Apr. 2021 (4)Case Law Update – Apr. 2025 (9)Case Law Update – Aug. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Dec. 2022 (10)Case Law Update – Feb. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Jan. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Mar. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Nov. 2022 (11)Case Law Update – Oct. 2022 (6)

About The Author

Picture of Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Barrister & Solicitor

From temporary status to PR, get expert legal help to choose the right immigration pathway.

Contact our office for details. Our immigration legal service in Winnipeg will assess your eligibility per CIC criteria and submit your application.