Background
The applicants are a family of three from Iran: Fatemeh Taremi, her spouse Moslem Hakimi, and their dependent child, Kamyar Hakimi. After receiving a job offer under a positive labour market impact assessment, Ms. Taremi applied for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Her spouse and child applied respectively for an open work permit and a study permit as accompanying family members.
An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officer rejected Ms. Taremi’s application because the officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her stay. The officer considered her financial situation insufficient to support her travel and that of her accompanying family members. The same officer refused the spouse’s and child’s applications. The decisions under review were dated March 24, 2025.
The family sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and, alternatively, that the officer breached procedural fairness by not giving them an opportunity to respond to the officer’s concerns. Justice Janet M. Fuhrer heard the matter by videoconference on November 2, 2026, and issued reasons and judgment on November 3, 2026. Alireza Eftekhardadkhah (Ali Dadkhah) appeared for the applicants, with Infinity Law Corporation of Victoria, British Columbia, as solicitors of record. Jordana Peters appeared for the respondent, with the Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, as solicitor of record.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the application for judicial review. Justice Fuhrer stated that the applicants bore the onus of establishing their grounds for review and found that they had shown the decision was unreasonable. Because that finding disposed of the matter, the Court did not address the alternative procedural fairness argument.
The Court applied the reasonableness framework in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, including the requirements of justification, transparency and intelligibility and the possibility of unreasonableness where a decision maker misapprehends the evidence. Justice Fuhrer was satisfied that, notwithstanding the presumption that the officer considered all the evidence, the officer overlooked critical information about the applicants’ overall financial resources on which they relied.
The Court identified several deficiencies in the officer’s treatment of the evidence. The officer did not address the proceeds from the sale of Ms. Taremi’s vehicle, the family’s savings, or rental income from their house in Iran. The Court also found it unreasonable for the officer to ignore the spouse’s contribution when Ms. Taremi’s work plan quantified and relied on his savings. Although the respondent pointed to the absence of a six-month Bank Mellat transaction history and the division of vehicle-sale proceeds among accounts, those concerns were not raised by the officer in the decision or Global Case Management System notes. The Court further found that the officer acknowledged “a large sum of funds” but did not explain why Ms. Taremi’s detailed explanation of provenance was insufficient, and did not engage with evidence of her ties to Iran, including her home, employment, family ties and prior travel. The reasons disclosed no concern other than sufficiency of funds.
Key Takeaways
- The Court set aside all three March 24, 2025 IRCC decisions: the refusal of Ms. Taremi’s work permit application and the refusals of her spouse’s open work permit and child’s study permit applications.
- The applications will be redetermined by a different IRCC officer, after the applicants are given a reasonable opportunity to provide updated information in support of their applications.
- The Court’s analysis concerned this officer’s treatment of the family’s financial evidence and ties to Iran; it did not decide the applicants’ alternative procedural fairness claim.
- The Court also noted that the Ankara Visa Office Additional Document Checklist was not properly in evidence because the respondent provided only a link in its Further Memorandum of Argument, stating that it should have been printed and submitted by affidavit.
- No serious question of general importance was proposed or arose for certification, and there were no costs.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates how a reasonableness challenge may succeed where an officer’s reasons do not engage with financial resources and other evidence relied upon by temporary resident applicants. Here, the Court focused on the unexplained treatment of vehicle-sale proceeds, savings, rental income, spousal savings, banking evidence and ties to Iran, rather than substituting its own assessment of whether the family would leave Canada.
The disposition is redetermination, not issuance of the requested permits. A different officer must reconsider the applications after the family has a reasonable opportunity to provide updated information. The Court’s comments about the respondent’s litigation arguments and the checklist arose in the circumstances of this record and should not be read as a universal rule governing every immigration judicial review.