Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1186 : Federal Court Reviews Spousal Sponsorship Refusal After IAD Prevented Sponsor From Fully Presenting Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision dismissing Sandeep Singh Grewal’s appeal from the refusal of his wife Gurmeet Kaur’s permanent residence application. Although the Minister became satisfied at the hearing that the marriage was genuine and recommended allowing the appeal, the IAD dismissed it, relying substantially on concerns related to Mr. Grewal’s intellectual disability, speech limitations, understanding of marriage, and capacity to consent. The Court granted judicial review because the IAD’s conduct prevented Mr. Grewal from fully presenting evidence relevant to the issues later decided against him.

Key Principle

A tribunal may disagree with the Minister’s recommendation or a joint position, but procedural fairness requires the affected party to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Where the tribunal signals that further evidence is unnecessary if the opposing party consents, it cannot later decide adversely on matters that the uncalled evidence could have addressed without giving the party an opportunity to complete the record. Joint recommendations are not binding on the IAD, but they require serious consideration and clear justification for departure.

Background

Mr. Grewal, a Canadian permanent resident, married Ms. Kaur in an arranged marriage in India in February 2017 and sponsored her for permanent residence. A visa officer refused the application under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR.

Before the IAD, psychiatric reports described Mr. Grewal as having an intellectual disability and speech difficulties, but concluded that he understood marriage and had adequate capacity to marry. His father and litigation guardian, Dilbagh Singh, was expected to provide important evidence.

After the Minister questioned Mr. Singh, Mr. Grewal’s counsel indicated that he had additional questions. The IAD effectively indicated that further questioning would only be necessary if the Minister did not consent. The Minister then recommended allowing the appeal, and counsel consequently did not continue examining Mr. Singh.

Court Findings

• Hearing Procedure Was Unfair

The IAD later dismissed the appeal without warning that concerns remained about genuineness and Mr. Grewal’s capacity. The Court held that after signalling further evidence was unnecessary following the Minister’s consent, fairness required the IAD to alert counsel and permit completion of Mr. Singh’s evidence before deciding adversely.

• Joint Recommendation Required Serious Consideration

The Minister’s recommendation did not legally bind the IAD. However, joint positions in the IAD’s adversarial process differ from ordinary arguments. The Court found that the IAD did not adequately demonstrate serious consideration of the recommendation or clearly justify why it departed from the parties’ shared position.

• Disability Could Not Be Assessed Through Unsupported Assumptions

Although procedural fairness was determinative, the Court expressed concern about the IAD’s treatment of Mr. Grewal’s intellectual disability. Two psychiatric reports supported his understanding and capacity, yet the IAD reached the opposite conclusion without adequately explaining why. It also appeared to assume that his communication and intellectual limitations made a genuine marriage less plausible. The Court cautioned that marriage genuineness must be assessed without imposing assumptions about what a person with intellectual disabilities can contribute to a relationship.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the sponsorship appeal to a differently constituted IAD panel for redetermination. None of the proposed questions was certified because the procedural fairness finding was sufficient to determine the application.

Case Citation:

Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1186 (CanLII)