In a Manifestly Unfounded Claim matter, the Federal Court dismissed the applicants’ motion to extend the time to serve and file their judicial-review record after finding that the proposed memorandum contained fictitious citations and misleading legal arguments. The Court also dismissed the underlying application for leave and judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division’s February 12, 2026 decision.
Case and procedural background
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202, was decided by Justice Roger R. Lafrenière in Ottawa on September 28, 2026. The applicants had challenged a Refugee Protection Division decision finding their refugee claim to be manifestly unfounded.
They filed their application for leave and judicial review on February 19, 2026, within the prescribed period. Under the Practice Guidelines then in force, their applicants’ record was due on May 5, 2026, 75 days after the application was filed.
The record was served on the respondent and submitted through the Electronic Filing System on May 20, 2026. The applicants sought an extension of time, saying a legal assistant had calculated the deadline from the respondent’s Notice of Appearance rather than from the filing date of the judicial-review application.
Applicants cited administrative error and proposed merits
The applicants characterized the delay as modest, fully explained and caused by an administrative error for which they should not be responsible. They also said they had maintained an intention to pursue the judicial review and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice from an extension.
Their proposed arguments included alleged procedural unfairness surrounding the manifestly unfounded finding, alleged reliance on undisclosed extrinsic evidence, concerns about visual fraud findings, the treatment of post-hearing submissions and country-conditions evidence, and credibility and genuineness findings.
The respondent opposed the motion on the merits branch of the extension-of-time test. It submitted that the applicants’ record cited non-existent jurisprudence and relied on authorities for propositions those cases did not contain. The respondent argued that the proposed memorandum was an abusive document.
Court found fictitious citations and inaccurate arguments
Justice Lafrenière identified several authorities in the applicants’ list of cases that could not be found at the citations provided. The Court said the numerous incorrect sources suggested that artificial intelligence tools had been used to prepare the list of authorities.
The Court also found inaccurate and misleading submissions in the proposed memorandum. It noted that two cases cited for a proposition about notice before a manifestly unfounded finding did not support that proposition, and that one cited decision did not contain the paragraph range relied upon by the applicants.
The applicants had an opportunity to reply to the allegations concerning the fictitious citations and inaccurate references but did not do so. In the absence of a response, the Court concluded that AI had been used in drafting the memorandum without careful human judgment applied to its output.
Why the extension was refused
The Court accepted that a delay caused by counsel’s error should not ordinarily be visited on the applicants. However, it found that the central concern was not the missed filing date but the content of the document the applicants sought to file.
Justice Lafrenière stated that citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and tantamount to making a false statement to the Court. The decision also stated that misleading arguments breach counsel’s duty of candour.
Although Rule 74 did not apply because the applicants’ record had not been filed, the Court observed that the respondent would be well-positioned to seek removal of the document from the court file as abusive if it were filed. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to extend the filing time.
Underlying RPD decision and result
The Court also addressed the applicants’ assertion that their underlying judicial-review application had merit. It found that credibility was the determinative issue before the RPD and that the RPD had found the claim clearly fraudulent because the principal claimant repeatedly relied on fraudulent documents concerning central components of the claim.
On a full and fair reading of the RPD’s detailed reasons, the Court held that the panel had appropriately addressed the issues and evidence. It found the result transparent, intelligible and within the range of outcomes available on the evidence and arguments before the RPD.
The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, as was the application for leave and judicial review. No costs were ordered because the respondent did not seek them.
Practical significance
This decision concerns the proposed record in this proceeding and does not establish a general policy change. Its reasoning underscores the Court’s concern with unverified authorities and legal submissions that inaccurately describe cited decisions.
For immigration litigation, the decision illustrates that an explained filing delay may not resolve an extension request where the proposed materials themselves raise concerns about fictitious citations or misleading legal arguments.
Source: Federal Court Decisions