Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1396 Federal Court Reaffirmed that both the requirements of bad-faith marriage test must be satisfied but the applicant

The Federal Court reviewed a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing a spousal sponsorship appeal. The IAD concluded that the marriage fell within the exclusion in subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) because it was more likely than not entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining immigration status in Canada. The Federal Court upheld the decision and reaffirmed that applicants must satisfy both branches of the bad-faith marriage test.

Key Principle

The Court reaffirmed that the bad-faith marriage test under IRPR subsection 4(1) contains two separate requirements: a marriage must be genuine and must not have been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status. A marriage that later develops into a genuine relationship may still fail if the original primary purpose of entering into the marriage was immigration-related.

Background

Shandeen Williams sponsored her foreign spouse for permanent residence under the Family Class. A visa officer refused the application, finding concerns about the genuineness and purpose of the marriage. On appeal, the IAD reviewed the couple’s evidence, including their testimony, communications, and the development of their relationship before and after marriage.

The IAD found that the evidence regarding the formation of the relationship before the marriage was weak. The couple provided contradictory testimony about when they decided to marry, and their communications before the wedding suggested a friendship rather than a developing marital relationship. The IAD concluded that the evidence did not establish that the primary purpose of the marriage was to form a genuine marital union.

Although there was some evidence that the relationship had strengthened after the wedding and may have become genuine over time, the IAD determined that the marriage was more likely entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit under the IRPA. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found the IAD’s decision reasonable. Justice Pallotta held that the IAD did not simply state a conclusion regarding the purpose of the marriage. Rather, it conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence, weighing various factors as positive, neutral, or negative indicators of both genuineness and immigration purpose.

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the IAD had effectively found the marriage genuine. The IAD merely observed that the marriage may have become genuine in recent years but did not make a conclusive finding on that issue. The Court emphasized that under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, an applicant must establish both that the marriage is genuine and that it was not entered into primarily to obtain immigration status.

The Court further held that the IAD properly considered the evidence relating to the development of the relationship. While post-marriage evidence supported the existence of a relationship, much of that evidence arose after the wedding and did not overcome concerns regarding the parties’ intentions at the time the marriage was entered into.

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review and upheld the IAD’s decision refusing the sponsorship application.

Case Citation: Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1396 (CanLII)