Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1686 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Despite Applicant’s Claim That Consultant Submitted Fraudulent Documents

Judicial Review Dismissed

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal to reopen Pavanjit Kaur Grewal’s work permit application. The original application was refused due to submission of fraudulent documents, resulting in inadmissibility under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The applicant sought to attribute responsibility to her immigration consultant, claiming lack of access to the submitted documents and procedural fairness letters. The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the applicant remained responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of her application.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that misrepresentation under IRPA does not require intent. Both deliberate and innocent misrepresentations, including those caused by faulty legal advice, can lead to inadmissibility. The “innocent error” exception applies only where the applicant can demonstrate diligence and reasonable efforts to verify the application’s accuracy, which was absent here.

Background

The applicant submitted her work permit application on September 24, 2022, which was refused on April 9, 2024, due to fraudulent supporting documents. She claimed that her immigration consultant failed to provide her access to the application and did not share procedural fairness communications. She further alleged that the consultant forged her signature on submitted documents.

IRCC’s reconsideration decision on October 11, 2024, confirmed the refusal. The officer noted that the applicant never declared a representative, and that clients are ultimately responsible for ensuring their applications are truthful and meet IRPA requirements. The officer found no legal error and declined to reopen the application.

Court Findings

• Innocent Error Exception Not Applicable

The Court held that the innocent error exception was inapplicable. The applicant wholly abdicated responsibility for verifying her application. There was no evidence of due diligence or efforts to ensure documents were complete, accurate, and truthful. Misrepresentations, whether deliberate or due to faulty legal advice, do not exempt applicants from accountability.

• Responsibility of Applicants

Justice Lafrenière confirmed that applicants must ensure compliance with IRPA when hiring representatives. Hiring a consultant does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for misrepresentation or fraudulent submissions.

• Procedural Fairness and Misrepresentation

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness. The applicant had opportunities to respond to the procedural fairness letters. Her claims regarding the consultant’s actions did not negate the officer’s assessment of misrepresentation.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The reconsideration decision was reasonable, and the finding of inadmissibility under subsection 40(1)(a) of IRPA stood. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1686 (CanLII)