Judicial Review – Federal Court

Judicial Review at the Federal Court is the primary legal mechanism for challenging immigration, refugee, and citizenship decisions made by IRCC, CBSA, and the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD, RAD, IAD, ID). Unlike an appeal, Judicial Review does not re-hear the case or substitute the Court’s decision for that of the immigration authority. Instead, the Court examines whether the decision was made lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. A successful Judicial Review can quash the decision and return the matter for redetermination by a different officer or tribunal Member.

Let's have a comprehensive, lawyer-level guide to Judicial Review, including leave requirements, timelines, legal standards, common grounds of review, drafting strategies, evidence requirements, stay motions, post-judgment consequences, and best practices for maximizing success. It is designed for applicants, lawyers, consultants, and organizations involved in immigration litigation.

Legal Framework

Judicial Review is governed by:

• Federal Courts Act,
• IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act),
• Federal Courts Rules,
• Administrative law principles,
• Supreme Court jurisprudence (notably Vavilov).

The Court reviews decisions from both inside and outside Canada.

Decisions Subject to Judicial Review

Almost all immigration decisions may be reviewed, including:

• TRV, work permit, and study permit refusals,
• Express Entry refusals,
• PNP refusals and non-compliance findings,
• spousal sponsorship refusals,
• H&C (Humanitarian and Compassionate) refusals,
• PR card refusals / residency obligation cases,
• citizenship refusals and revocation decisions,
• inadmissibility rulings,
• RPD and RAD refugee refusals,
• PRRA refusals,
• visa officer procedural fairness decisions,
• CBSA enforcement decisions.

What Judicial Review Does NOT Do

• It does NOT accept new evidence (with narrow exceptions).
• It does NOT redo the hearing.
• It does NOT automatically stop removal.
• It does NOT replace the officer’s decision with the Court’s decision.

The remedy is usually to send the matter back to a different officer.

Two-Stage Process: Leave and Judicial Review

Most cases require permission (“leave”) from the Court.

1. Leave Stage

The applicant must file:

• Notice of Application (within very strict timelines),
• Applicant’s Record (facts, evidence on the record, legal arguments).

The Minister files a responding memorandum. The Court decides—without a hearing—whether the case deserves a full review.

If leave is granted → a hearing is scheduled.

2. Judicial Review (Hearing)

Counsel presents legal arguments before a Federal Court judge, explaining why the decision was unreasonable or unfair.

Timelines

• 15 days to file from inside Canada,
• 60 days to file from outside Canada.

Missing the deadline is fatal unless extraordinary remedies apply.

Legal Standards of Review

1. Reasonableness (default standard)

The Court examines whether the decision is transparent, justified, and intelligible.

2. Correctness (limited circumstances)

Applies to:

• questions of procedural fairness,
• jurisdictional errors,
• constitutional issues,
• true questions of law (narrow under Vavilov).

Common Grounds for Judicial Review

1. Failure to Consider Key Evidence

• officer ignored material documents,
• refugee Member ignored corroborating evidence,
• visa officer overlooked proof of ties, finances, or purpose of visit.

2. Unreasonable Findings of Fact

• speculative credibility findings,
• misinterpretation of documents,
• contradiction between reasons and evidence.

3. Procedural Fairness Violations

• no opportunity to respond to concerns,
• failure to issue a Procedural Fairness Letter,
• decisions based on undisclosed evidence,
• bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

4. Incorrect Interpretation of Law

• misapplied IRPA, IRPR, or case law,
• incorrect legal tests (e.g., for H&C, state protection, IFA).

5. Unreasonable Credibility Findings

• minor inconsistencies treated as major contradictions,
• demeanor-based findings not grounded in evidence,
• lack of consideration of trauma/expert reports.

Stay of Removal Motions (Urgent)

When CBSA schedules removal, counsel may file an urgent motion to stay deportation until Judicial Review concludes.

• serious issue in the underlying case,
• irreparable harm if removed,
• balance of convenience favouring applicant.

Stay motions require rapid and strategic preparation.

Outcomes of Judicial Review

1. Application Allowed (Success)

• decision quashed,
• matter returned for reconsideration by a different officer,
• stay of removal may be extended (if applicable).

2. Application Dismissed

• original decision stands,
• removal may proceed,
• future applications may be limited.

High-Risk Profiles for JR

• refugee claimants with negative RPD/RAD outcomes,
• TRV applicants with weak documentation,
• H&C applicants with credibility issues,
• spousal sponsorship refusals involving marriage genuineness concerns,
• PNP applicants with misrepresentation allegations,
• citizenship cases involving residency or misrepresentation rulings.

Role of Skilled Counsel

Effective Judicial Review representation requires:

• precise legal argumentation,
• deep understanding of administrative law,
• rigorous evidence review,
• identifying legal and factual errors,
• drafting compelling memoranda,
• advocacy during oral hearings.

Federal Court litigation is complex and unforgiving. With strong legal strategy, applicants can overturn unjust decisions and secure a second chance in Canada’s immigration system.