Misrepresentation fairness was central in Kaur v. Canada, 2026 FC 1216, where the Federal Court set aside a finding that a temporary resident visa holder was inadmissible under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Court found that the procedural fairness letter gave only a general conclusion that a property valuation report was fraudulent, without disclosing the underlying concern recorded in the officer’s notes.
Case information
The decision was released by the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, on October 1, 2026. Justice Battista heard the application for judicial review in court file IMM-19440-25.
Visa cancellation and misrepresentation finding
The applicant’s temporary resident visa was cancelled before she was found inadmissible for misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Following the visa cancellation, the applicant received a procedural fairness letter stating that a property valuation report submitted with her application had been verified and confirmed to be fraudulent.
Court found the letter did not disclose the concern
Justice Battista held that the statement in the procedural fairness letter was a conclusion, rather than an identified concern or an explanation of why the officer had concerns about the document.
The officer’s Global Case Management System notes contained further detail. They indicated that the report had been considered fraudulent because it was similar to reports submitted in other applications.
The Court found that the general wording of the letter denied the applicant the opportunity to know the officer’s concern and respond fairly to it. It concluded that this fell short of the high procedural fairness standards required for misrepresentation findings.
Judicial review granted
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and set aside the inadmissibility decision. There was no question for certification and no order concerning costs.
The decision is focused on the adequacy of the procedural fairness letter in this matter. It highlights that, where a misrepresentation finding is under consideration, the affected person must be given enough information about the concern to respond fairly.
Source: Federal Court Decisions