Category Archive

One issue that arises with the landing portal is what are the potential consequences if someone receives their eCOPR while they are temporarily outside of Canada, if they had already declared their presence in Canada through the PR confirmation portal before leaving? Here is an IMMReps response.  

There would be perhaps few things as frustrating for the potential employers of foreign workers than to go through the Labour Market Impact Assessment process only to learn that they were not considered to be an employer by the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada. According to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program manual, an employer is an entity (e.g. person, business, corporation or organization) that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals who provide labour in return for compensation for a specified period of time. The employer is generally the entity that hires, controls working conditions and remunerates the foreign national. The Manual further states: Entities Considered the Employer of a Foreign National under the TFW Program: Canadian-Based Entity A person, business, corporation or organization based in Canada that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals. Foreign-Based Entity A person, business, corporation or organization that is not based in Canada that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals to work in Canada. For identification purposes, it is strongly recommended that the foreign-based employer obtain a Canadian business number to facilitate the TFW Program’s assessment of their genuineness. … Read More

Randall Cohn, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver, joins to discuss his reasons for leaving the Canadian immigration law practice area.

In Saffar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 645, the Federal Court ruled that it is reasonable for IRCC to refuse a permanent residence application if the applicant does not provide the Right of Permanent Residence Fee, and that IRCC does not have to inform them that the application was approved first.

The following PDF contains several IRCC training materials. Here are more IRCC training materials.

“Incompetence of counsel” in the Canadian immigration law context refers to situations where an applicant seeks to set aside a decision (e.g., refusal, removal order, etc.) on the grounds that their legal or immigration representative provided ineffective or negligent assistance, which prejudiced their case. Arsheep Kahlon joins to discuss the key elements of how this argument works.

Martin Basiri is a Co-Founder and the former Chief Executive Oofficer of ApplyBoard, a Start-Up Visa Program company that in 2021 reached a valuation of $3.2-billion. He is currently the Founder of and CEO of Passage, which enables immigrants and international students by providing financial access. Martin is part of Build Canada, an organization that helps Canadian entrepreneurs share their ideas for a bolder, richer, freer country. We discuss Martin’s proposal Great People, Greater Canada: A Talent First Immigration Strategy for Canada, which contains specific proposals to reposition Canadian immigration law, and particuarly its economic class, as one focused on bringing the best talent to Canada, rather than other political considerations that currently seem to be prioritized.

On March 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 6. Prior to the case, in Saskatchewan’s provincial correctional institutions, inmates charged with disciplinary offences had to appear before a disciplinary panel, where the standard of proof was a balance of probabilities, even for major offences that may result in up to 10 days of disciplinary segregation or the loss of up to 15 days of earned remission. The Supreme Court found that this violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, and held that to the extent that the law permitted the imposition of disciplinary segregation and loss of earned remission for an inmate disciplinary offence on a lower standard of proof, it is inconsistent with the Constitution and must therefore be declared to be of no force or effect. As noted by the dissent, the case could have implications for Canadian immigration law.

Deanna discusses the new Ministerial Instructions rolling out the long awaited caregiver pilots on 31 March 2025.

In Khorsand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 540, Madam Justice Aylen ruled that when assessing the mental health effects of removal it is insufficient for officers to simply state that the country of citizenship has medical facilities to deal with healthcare. Rather, officers must assess the actual evidence that it is the removal that can cause mental decline.