Background
Stefano Righetti, an Italian citizen residing in Singapore and married to a Canadian citizen, applied for an electronic travel authorization (eTA) in February 2023. On his application he answered “No” to the question asking whether he had ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry, or ordered to leave Canada or any other country. In fact, Canadian Border Services Agency records showed that in June 2017 Righetti had been refused work permits on three separate occasions at British Columbia land ports of entry — including two attendances accompanied by his immigration consultant — while also being found to have worked without authorization in Canada.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) detected the discrepancy and issued a procedural fairness letter in August 2023. Righetti maintained he never received it, and his eTA was refused in September 2023 for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The parties settled that judicial review, agreeing to set aside the refusal and redetermine the application. During the redetermination Righetti submitted inconsistent accounts — his March 2024 submission disclosed prior work permit refusals, while his May 2024 submission replaced those with a claim he had merely been refused entry as a permanent resident — prompting a second procedural fairness letter in May 2024.
Righetti responded to the second letter, belatedly disclosed the work permit refusals, and simultaneously renewed his request to withdraw the eTA application entirely. The IRCC officer declined to permit withdrawal, found the misrepresentation established on a balance of probabilities, and refused the eTA on July 8, 2024. Righetti sought judicial review of that redetermination decision.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Duchesne dismissed the application on all grounds. On procedural fairness, the Court held that no additional letter or interview was required before the officer made adverse credibility findings. The May 2024 procedural fairness letter had identified the exact statutory concern, the specific application question, and the factual basis for the misrepresentation allegation. Once Righetti responded by claiming ignorance of the work permit applications, his state of knowledge was squarely at issue and the officer was entitled to assess the plausibility of that explanation against the documentary record without further notice.
On the refusal to permit withdrawal, the Court found the decision reasonable. Citing Zhang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 463, the Court affirmed that permitting withdrawal after a misrepresentation concern has been detected would undermine program integrity. Because IRCC had already issued an earlier misrepresentation refusal — set aside only on procedural fairness grounds, not on the merits — the officer was entitled to resolve the outstanding concern before allowing the file to be closed.
On the misrepresentation finding itself, the Court rejected Righetti’s argument that his belated disclosure of the work permit refusals cured the section 40(1)(a) inadmissibility. Relying on Ganeshalingam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1437, Righetti argued that a voluntary correction before a final decision removes the risk of administrative error, but the Court distinguished that case on the ground that Ganeshalingam involved a correction made before IRCC had detected the misrepresentation. Here, the officer also reasonably found the materiality threshold met: three prior Canadian work permit refusals, linked to findings of unauthorized work, were plainly relevant to a full assessment of an eTA application and could have triggered additional investigation had they been disclosed at the outset.
Key Takeaways
- A procedural fairness letter that identifies the precise statutory provision, the specific question answered incorrectly, and the factual basis for the concern gives the applicant adequate notice; no further letter or interview is required simply because the officer ultimately rejects the applicant’s explanation on credibility grounds.
- An applicant cannot avoid a misrepresentation finding under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA by disclosing omitted information after IRCC has already detected the issue; post-detection correction is relevant but not automatically curative, and the officer retains discretion to refuse withdrawal on program integrity grounds.
- The “innocent mistake” exception requires both honest and objectively reasonable belief that the answer given was accurate; an applicant who attended three port-of-entry encounters — two with an immigration consultant — cannot plausibly claim unawareness that work permits, not permanent residence, were at issue.
- Previous permit refusals are material facts for eTA purposes because their disclosure may prompt investigations or verifications that would not otherwise occur; omitted information need not be decisive to satisfy the materiality requirement under section 40(1)(a).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the window for a corrective disclosure to neutralize a misrepresentation concern closes once IRCC detects the omission. Applicants and their representatives are put on notice that inconsistencies across sequential submissions — particularly where an earlier refusal on misrepresentation grounds already exists on the file — will not be rescued by a late acknowledgment of the omitted facts, even during a court-ordered redetermination. The case also clarifies that a settlement setting aside a prior refusal on procedural grounds does not require IRCC to restart its substantive analysis from a blank slate.
More broadly, the judgment underscores the high evidentiary bar for the innocent mistake exception in misrepresentation cases involving in-person border interactions. Where an applicant was physically present during immigration proceedings, accompanied by professional representation, and the underlying records are detailed and contemporaneous, an officer will have a solid foundation for implausibility findings — and courts applying reasonableness review will be slow to disturb them.