When immigration judicial reviews involve sensitive national security information, the ordinary rules of open court proceedings can change dramatically. Section 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) creates a unique procedure that allows the Minister to ask the Federal Court to protect certain information from disclosure during a judicial review. Although these applications are relatively uncommon, they play an important role in cases involving security screening, intelligence information, or confidential investigative material. What is a Section 87 Order? Section 87 of the IRPA permits the Minister, during a judicial review, to apply for an order preventing the disclosure of information or other evidence. Rather than creating a standalone procedure, s. 87 incorporates the procedural framework found in s. 83 of the IRPA—with the exception of the requirements to appoint a special advocate and provide a summary of the confidential information. In practical terms, this allows the Federal Court to receive evidence in a closed hearing, outside the presence of the applicant and their counsel, if disclosure could: injure international relations; injure national defence; injure national security; or endanger the safety of any person. How Does the Process Work? When the Minister brings a s. 87 application, the Court … Read More

One of the defining features of the Canadian justice system is the open court principle. Court proceedings are presumed to be open to the public, reflecting the principle that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. As the Federal Court recently noted, courts “do their business in public.” That presumption, however, is not absolute. In limited circumstances, the Federal Court will order that a party’s identity be anonymized. The Starting Point: The Open Court Principle The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, that openness is the default position in Canadian courts. Anyone seeking to restrict public access to court proceedings bears a significant burden. To obtain an anonymity order (or another order limiting public access), an applicant must establish three things: Court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest; The order is necessary because no reasonable alternative would adequately protect that interest; and The benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects on the open court principle. This is a demanding test. Mere embarrassment or inconvenience will not suffice. What Qualifies as an “Important Public Interest”? The Supreme Court identified several interests that may … Read More

  Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff review several responses from IRCC’s Immigration Representatives’ Mailbox, where immigration representatives ask questions about how Canadian immigration law and various immigration programs are interpreted and applied. This correspondence was obtained through an Access to Information Act request. Topics discussed include: (1) whether rental assistance counts as social assistance for sponsorships; (2) study permit requirements for children of protected persons; (3) maintained status and “rolling” extension applications; (4) whether marriages count for immigration purposes if the commissionaire is joining remotely; (5) criminal rehabilitation applications and concurrent filings; (6) adding newborn children after COPRs are issued; (7) travelling to Canada by land with an expired PR Card; (8) whether C11 entrepreneur work permits count toward Express Entry; (9) foreign work experience performed remotely from inside Canada; (10) Express Entry NOC code refusals and category-based selection issues; (11) non-accompanying spouses and CRS score maximization; (12) proof of settlement funds in foreign currencies; and (13) PR portal travel complications and eCOPRs. We also answer a live listener question about ATIPs and CBSA.

When it comes to work permits there are certian issues that are somewhat unique to truck drivers. Mandatory Entry-Level Training Over the years Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Service Canada have had different policies regarding MELT. The most recent on this is that employers must confirm who will pay for MELT, if wages will be paid during the training period, and require documentation confirming. In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 892, Justice Fuhrer held that it was reasonable for IRCC to determine that a MELT was not a certificate of qualification. Language In Sangha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 95 Justice Russel stated that “safety must surely be a pramount requirement for competence” in the case of long-haul truck drivers, and that applicants must accordingly provide evidence of compliance. In Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 573 Justice Brown further determined that it is reasonable for an officer to consider the issue of an applicant’s ability to drive safely on Canadian roads when assessing the overall suitability of an applicant to become a Canadian long-haul truck driver, even if visa office checklists do not require this. There, the applicant had provided an … Read More

Canadian citizenship carries significant rights and responsibilities, and as a result it is not granted lightly. Individuals seeking to become Canadian citizens must demonstrate that they meet several eligibility requirements set out in the Citizenship Act. These requirements are designed to ensure that applicants have established a meaningful connection to Canada before being granted citizenship. One of the most important requirements applies to adult permanent residents who apply for citizenship. To be eligible, applicants must show that they satisfy all of the criteria in subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act. These criteria include factors such as holding permanent resident status, meeting language requirements where applicable, filing taxes when required, and passing a citizenship knowledge test. A key component of eligibility is the residency requirement. Under the Citizenship Act, an applicant must demonstrate that they were physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five-year period immediately before the date of their citizenship application. In other words, an applicant must have spent at least three years in Canada within the relevant five-year window. This physical presence requirement is assessed based on the actual number of days that the applicant was in Canada. Applicants are therefore required to carefully … Read More

  The first Borderlines episode of 2026 is our annual recap + predictions roundtable with Ottawa immigration lawyer Tamara Mosher-Kuczer. We look back at what actually happened in 2025, what surprised us most, and what 2026 might bring. Timestamps / Chapters 0:52 Looking back: how many predictions were right last year? 14:40 2026 predictions 39:46 Listener question: What will happen with caregivers? 42:28 Listener prediction: Turning asylum into a temporary pathway 46:11 Listener question: Trades vs. Francophones 52:12 Listner question: LMIA exemptions / significant benefit work permits—any expansion? 57:56 Will Canada’s population increase or decrease in 2026? Subscribe for weekly immigration law breakdowns and policy updates, and tell us: What’s your boldest 2026 immigration prediction?

The following is the IRCC Manual on H&C applications. Here are the standard operating procedures on H&C intake.