In Temporary Resident Visa, Gill v. Canada, 2026 FC 1121, the Federal Court dismissed Harjot Singh Gill’s judicial review application as moot after IRCC reopened and redetermined the refused application. The Court granted him 15 days from the September 2, 2026 judgment to file for leave and judicial review of IRCC’s subsequent June 18, 2026 refusal.
Case concerned December 2024 TRV refusal
Justice Nicholas McHaffie heard the case, IMM-23825-24, following Mr. Gill’s challenge to IRCC’s December 2024 refusal of his temporary resident visa application. Mr. Gill had applied on April 2, 2024, intending to travel from India to visit his aunt in Brampton.
The application had a procedural history involving earlier refusals and redeterminations. The first refusal in May 2024 was set aside through a settlement, allowing Mr. Gill to provide updated documents. IRCC refused the application again in September 2024, but later reopened it and made the December 2024 refusal that was under review in this case.
After the Court granted leave and held a hearing in June 2026, the parties learned that IRCC had again reopened the application in May 2026, invited updated documentation and issued a further refusal on June 18, 2026. The Minister advised that the reopening had occurred in error because IRCC apparently misunderstood the order granting leave as a decision on the merits.
Parties disputed whether the case was moot
Both Mr. Gill and the Minister initially maintained that the judicial review of the December 2024 refusal was not moot. Mr. Gill argued that he should not lose a decision in a matter that had already been fully argued, and he sought an order sending the application back for another redetermination.
The Minister later clarified that IRCC’s reopening and the June 2026 refusal were valid despite the error. The Minister submitted that the remaining issue was principally Mr. Gill’s request for costs.
The Court applied the two-stage mootness approach described in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), as recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It first considered whether a live dispute remained, and then whether the Court should nevertheless use its discretion to decide a moot matter.
IRCC reopening achieved the relief sought
Justice McHaffie concluded that Mr. Gill had effectively obtained the result he sought in the judicial review: an opportunity to submit updated documentation followed by a new determination of his TRV application by IRCC. The Court found that it did not matter, for mootness purposes, that IRCC had acted unilaterally rather than under a settlement or court order.
The Court held that reopening and redetermining the application had effectively set aside the December 2024 refusal. As a result, an order quashing that refusal would have no legal or practical effect on Mr. Gill’s rights.
Mr. Gill argued that a judgment could provide directions or reasoning for IRCC to consider on redetermination. The Court found that he had not requested specific directions and noted that such directions are generally issued sparingly. Any reasons on the December 2024 refusal would address the record before the officer at that time and would not alter the nature of a new assessment.
The Court also found that the outstanding request for costs did not keep the entire application alive. Costs in immigration matters require special reasons, and Mr. Gill had made no submissions establishing special reasons for an award.
Court declined to decide the moot application
The Court accepted that an adversarial context remained between the parties but declined to exercise its residual discretion to decide the application. On judicial economy, Justice McHaffie noted that counsel had not informed the Court or the Minister about the reopening until reply submissions at the hearing, although the reopening had occurred before the hearing.
The Court also found that deciding the matter would not be consistent with the courts’ proper adjudicative role. Parliament has assigned visa decision-making to visa officers, while the Court’s role is to review the legality of those decisions. That role was reduced once IRCC had already reopened the application for redetermination.
The application was therefore dismissed as moot, without a determination of Mr. Gill’s arguments about the reasonableness of the December 2024 refusal.
Extension granted for challenge to June refusal
With the Minister’s consent, the Court granted Mr. Gill a 15-day extension from the date of judgment to file an application for leave and judicial review of the June 18, 2026 TRV refusal.
Justice McHaffie found there was a reasonable explanation for not filing within the usual period, given the uncertainty surrounding the status of the June refusal and the mootness submissions in this proceeding. The Court also cited the Minister’s consent, the absence of prejudice to the Minister and the short extension requested.
Source: Federal Court Decisions