Phan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 860 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal found Unreasonable Due to Misapprehension of Cohabitation Evidence

The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal of a sponsored permanent residence application under the Family Class. The Applicant argued that the Officer unreasonably assessed the evidence concerning the genuineness of her marriage and that procedural fairness was breached because her former counsel failed to properly assist her. The Court found the refusal unreasonable because the Officer misapprehended substantial evidence of cohabitation and provided reasons that lacked transparency. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the allegations concerning incompetent counsel or the reconsideration decision.

Key Principle

An officer assessing the genuineness of a spousal relationship must consider the evidence fairly and provide reasons that are justified, transparent, and intelligible. Although the weight assigned to evidence is generally for the officer to determine, the officer cannot materially misapprehend the evidence or characterize substantial evidence as limited or sparse without explanation. The assessment of spousal relationships must also remain flexible because the factors relevant to recognizing a genuine relationship can vary widely.

Background

The Applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, met her Canadian spouse in November 2019 while she held a study permit. They married in Markham, Ontario, and began living together on December 3, 2022. A sponsored Family Class permanent residence application was submitted in September 2023.

The Officer later issued a procedural fairness letter (PFL) raising concerns about the “limited proof of cohabitation” and requested additional evidence, including a relationship timeline, photographs, proof of financial interdependence, evidence of visits, and proof of cohabitation. The PFL also questioned why the Applicant’s counsel was a paralegal and why no Use of Representative form had been submitted.

The Applicant contacted counsel, who was outside Canada and advised her to review and expand the relationship information in the application. She and her husband then prepared and submitted a response without counsel’s assistance. The application was ultimately refused because the Officer characterized the relationship evidence as “sparse, at best.” A subsequent reconsideration request was denied without substantive reasons.

Court Findings

• The Officer Misapprehended the Cohabitation Evidence

The Court identified numerous documents supporting the couple’s cohabitation, including both spouses’ Ontario driver’s licences, a joint bank account statement, the marriage certificate, the husband’s CRA Notice of Assessment, IRCC correspondence, and immigration forms identifying their shared address. The Officer nevertheless described the evidence as “limited.” The Court found this characterization unreasonable.

• Additional Cohabitation Evidence Required Explanation

The Court questioned why extensive proof of cohabitation was treated as critical where the Applicant was applying as a married spouse, rather than as a common-law partner for whom cohabitation is a defining element. If the Officer considered the evidence unreliable or insufficient, reasons explaining why were required.

• Other Reasons Lacked Transparency

The Officer also relied on the Applicant’s length of time in Canada, the period the couple had known each other, and her original purpose for coming to Canada. The Court found it unclear how these facts undermined the genuineness of the marriage. The Applicant had also provided dated relationship photographs, wedding photographs, a detailed relationship timeline, and evidence of joint travel, yet the Officer characterized the overall evidence as “sparse” without adequate explanation.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal of the sponsored permanent residence application, and remitted the matter to a different Officer for redetermination. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:
Phan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 860 (CanLII)