Docket: T-1057-25
Citation: 2025 FC 2018
Toronto, Ontario, December 22, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Furlanetto
|
BETWEEN: |
|
JOSS COVENOHO |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
COLLEGE OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP CONSULTANTS |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Ms. Covenoho, is a licensed paralegal in Ontario and a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant [RCIC]. She brings this application for judicial review to challenge a March 17, 2025 decision [Decision] of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants [College]. In the Decision, the College denied her request for an exemption from completing the New Licensee Mentoring Program [NLMP] as a requirement of her L3 licence as an RCIC.
[2] The Applicant asserts that the College erred by not exempting her from the NLMP. She contends that she was unable to fulfill the NLMP requirement because the program was unavailable. She asserts that the College imposed an unauthorized restriction on her L3 licence requiring her to complete the NLMP beyond the time specified in the relevant policy for the program. She states that she is exempt from the NLMP as a graduate of the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law, and challenges whether the NLMP can serve as a post-licensing requirement.
[3] The Applicant requests various forms of relief in her application, including setting aside the Decision, requesting an order that the College issue an unrestricted and unconditional L3 licence, an injunction against the College, a stay of any suspension or revocation of her licence for non-compliance with the NLMP, declaratory relief, and the right to pursue compensatory and punitive damages in the appropriate forum.
[4] For the reasons set out below, I find the College did not act outside its jurisdiction, the Applicant has not established a reviewable error, nor is there a breach of procedural fairness. The application is accordingly dismissed.
II. Background
A. The Statutory Framework
[5] The College is a regulatory body that administers the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act, SC 2019, c 29 [Act]. As set out in section 4 of the Act, its purpose is to “regulate immigration and citizenship consultants in the public interest and protect the public.”
This includes “establishing and administering qualification standards, standards of practice and continuing education requirements for licensees,”
and “establishing and providing training and development programs for licensees.”
[6] Subsection 80(1) of the Act allows the Board of Directors [Board] of the College to make by-laws for several purposes, including to establish classes of licences and eligibility requirements, licensing conditions or restrictions, and continuing professional development requirements on licensees. Section 33 of the Act permits the College’s Registrar to grant licences to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements set out in the by-laws, subject to any conditions or restrictions imposed under the Act.
[7] The College’s licensing classes and eligibility requirements for licensing are set out in By-law 2021-2 [By-law], which came into effect on November 22, 2021; a date before the Applicant began the RCIC program at Queen’s University. Section 10.1 of the By-law provides for three licensing classes for RCICs:
A. Class L1 – RCIC – Conditional Practice;
B. Class L2 – RCIC – Restricted Practice; and
C. Class L3 –RCIC-IRB – Unrestricted Practice.
[8] Only an L3 licensee is permitted to practice before the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB].
[9] Section 3.1 of the By-law permits the Board to make Regulations and policies with respect to “any matter not inconsistent with provincial and federal legislation or the By-laws of the [College]”
and which further the “purpose of the [College]”
. Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the By-law, the College may also “impose restrictions or conditions on the right of any person to practise as a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant”
.
[10] The qualifications for obtaining a Class L3 licence are set out in section 10.4 of the By‑law, which specifically refers to the NLMP as follows:
The Registrar shall admit as a Class L3 licensee any individual who:
(a) Before June 30, 2022, or such other date as may be fixed by the Board by resolution, meets the qualifications for licensing as a licensee set out in section 10.2 and has completed the Specialization Program and associated exam; and
(b) on or after July 1, 2022, or such other date as may be fixed by the Board by resolution, has been licensed as a Class L1 licensee pursuant to section 10.2 for a period of not less than six (6) months and has successfully completed the New-Licensee Mentoring Program; and whose Class L1 licence is In Good Standing at the time of application for licensing as a Class L3 licensee.
[11] Section 4.1 of the By-law deems that all licensees have “agreed with the [College]”
and have agreed “to the terms of the By-laws, Professional Conduct Obligations and policies of the [College], as applicable.”
[12] The NLMP is established and administered through the NLMP Policy. This policy was first approved by the Board on September 29, 2022, with the companion Supervised Program Practice Policy. These two policies were later repealed and replaced with the current NLMP Policy on June 8, 2023 [NLMP Policy].
[13] Under the heading “Application and Scope”
, the NLMP Policy states that it applies to “new Licensees who are mandated to complete the New-Licensee Mentoring Program (By-law, ss. 10.3, 10.4, 10.6) within 12 months of being licensed”
. It also specifies, under the same heading, that the NLMP Policy applies to graduates of the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law “who receive their Letter of Authority as Class L3 licensees and, as per section 10.4 of the By-law, are mandated to complete the New-Licensee Mentoring Program within 12 months of licensing in order to maintain their Class L3 licence”
.
[14] Section 1 of the NLMP Policy sets out the policy requirements and states that every licensee who received a Letter of Authority [LOA] on or after July 1, 2022 must complete the NLMP within one year of obtaining their licence.
[15] Pursuant to section 11.4 of the NLMP Policy, a licensee who fails to complete the NLMP within 12 months of receiving their licence “will have their name forwarded to the Registrar to have their licence suspended”
. Further, a failure to complete the NLMP during the suspension period “will result in the licensee’s licence being revoked.”
[16] The NLMP is a 16-week program that provides for a period of practical experience under the supervision of an experienced licensee.
B. The relevant background relating to the Applicant’s L3 licence
[17] The Applicant completed the RCIC academic program at Queen’s University on December 31, 2022.
[18] In early 2023, she began her licensing application for an L3 licence. She completed and passed the RCIC Entry to Practice Exam in the spring of 2023 and signed the “Agreement to Regulation Direction”
on June 23, 2023 [Declaration]. In the Declaration, she agreed to inter alia be regulated by the College and to abide by their “By-laws, Regulations and Code of Professional Conduct”
.
[19] On August 24, 2023, the Applicant wrote the College and asked for clarification on the requirement to complete the NLMP. In its response, the College indicated that all new licensees who received their LOA on or after July 1, 2022 were required to complete the NLMP, regardless of their educational background, although the program was not yet available. The response indicated that licensed RCICs were not restricted from staring their practice, and that only L3 licensees could practice before the IRB.
[20] The Applicant followed up with additional questions about the NLMP and clarification as to when she could begin her practice in view of certain provisions of the NLMP Policy. On August 29, 2023, the College responded, confirming that once the Applicant received an LOA, she could begin her practice. The response reiterated that the NLMP intake in which the Applicant was required to enroll was not yet available and stated that notification with application instructions would follow once the intake became available.
[21] The Applicant was issued a LOA for a Class L3, RCIC-IRB licence on October 13, 2023. The LOA indicated that the licence was conditional on the Applicant completing the NLMP and stated that she was required to complete the NLMP within “12 months or within the first 2 available intakes, whichever is greater span of time.”
[22] On February 24, 2025, the Applicant received an email with information to register for the NLMP that was scheduled to start on March 31, 2025. The email indicated that the Applicant was “required to register for the upcoming session”
and that it was a “mandatory program ... required of all Class L1 RCICs and Class L3 RCIC-IRBs licensed after July 1, 2022, to meet the conditions of their licence.”
[23] On the same day, the Applicant wrote to the College requesting a waiver from the NLMP requirement. In her letter, she asserted that the NLMP requirement “should not be enforced retroactively given that compliance was impossible due to the timing of the program’s session”
. She argued that the LOA’s requirement that the NLMP be completed “within 12 months or within the first two available intakes, whichever is greater”
, conflicted with the By-law and policies that mandated completion within 12 months of an applicant obtaining their licence.
[24] On March 17, 2025, the Manager of Registration denied the Applicant’s exemption request. The Decision stated as follows:
The New Licensee Mentoring Program is mandatory for all RCICs who received their Letter of Authority on or after July 1, 2022. This requirement was communicated to prospective licensees and applies to all new licensees who became licensed as of and after that date. The College does not grant exceptions. Your request for an exemption from the New Licensee Mentoring Program is denied.
Your licensee profile indicates that you are meeting all your current ongoing requirements, with the exception of registration in and completion of the New Licensee Mentoring Program.
You missed the March 3, 2025, application deadline for the upcoming session. You will be notified when you are required to register for the next available session. Failure to register and complete the program in the next available session will count as an attempt and may result in the suspension or revocation of licence.
[25] On the same day as the Decision, the Applicant was separately advised that the March 2025 session of the NLMP had reached capacity and that she would need to complete the program in a future session. The notice indicated that the failure to complete the program in the next available session would count as an attempt and “may result in the suspension or revocation of licence”
.
[26] At the time of the hearing, the Applicant had not registered for the NLMP. She continues to receive notices from the College advising her of the dates for the new intakes for the NLMP and warning her of possible suspension or revocation of her licence.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[27] As a preliminary matter, the Respondent asserts that the application should be dismissed because of undue delay. Although the notice of application identifies the decision under review as the decision denying the Applicant’s exemption request, the Respondent contends that the Applicant’s challenge to the requirement to complete the NLMP is really a challenge to the LOA issued on October 13, 2023. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant’s request for an exemption some 18 months after the LOA creates a manufactured extension to the statutory timeline for judicial review imposed by section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7, which provides a party thirty days after the time the decision was communicated to initiate a judicial review. I do not find the Respondent’s argument persuasive.
[28] First, the Applicant’s concern relating to the NLMP requirement did not fully crystallize until after she received notice to register for the NLMP and her request for exemption was denied. The LOA authorized the Applicant’s L3 licence and confirmed that the licence was issued on the condition that the Applicant would complete the NLMP. There was no basis for the Applicant to challenge the LOA when it was sent as at that point the Applicant had been given the right to begin her practice, the 12-month period had not yet passed, and there was no request yet from the Applicant to be exempted from the NLMP. It was not until the Decision that the potential consequences on the Applicant of not completing the NLMP (i.e., the potential for suspension and revocation of licence) fully materialized.
[29] Second, while I agree that certain of the Applicant’s arguments refer to the imposition of the NLMP requirement, this does not substantiate dismissal of the application for undue delay. By engaging with the exemption request, there was an exercise of discretion by the College which required the College to consider the LOA and the NLMP requirement and issue a decision based on the Applicant’s request. The Decision indicates that the request was considered and reviewed with the President and CEO of the College. The response to the exemption request is a reviewable decision and the notice of application is clear that the Applicant is challenging this decision.
[30] The issues on this judicial review shall be considered with this full context in mind.
[31] The following issues are raised by this application:
-
Did the College have jurisdiction to make the Applicant’s L3 licence conditional on her completing the NLMP within 12 months or the first two intakes of the program?
-
Was the decision to decline the Applicant’s exemption/waiver request reasonable?
-
Did the College conduct itself in a procedurally fair manner?
-
If the application is allowed, what relief can be granted?
[32] I agree with the Respondent that the standard of review for the first two issues is reasonableness. None of the situations that rebut the presumption of reasonableness review for administrative decisions are present: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 16-17 and 69. This remains true for jurisdictional issues involving whether administrative bodies have acted within the scope of their lawful authority: Vavilov at paras 65-67.
[33] A reasonable decision is one “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
: Vavilov at para 85. A decision will be reasonable if when read as a whole, and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99.
[34] With respect to procedural fairness, the standard of review is akin to correctness: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35. The Court must determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to the circumstances, including the factors outlined in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) [Baker]. It places sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual and asks whether a fair and just process was followed: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54.
IV. Analysis
A. Did the College have jurisdiction to make the Applicant’s L3 licence conditional on her completing the NLMP within 12 months or the first two intakes of the program?
[35] The Applicant contends that subsection 10.4(b) of the By-law does not make the NLMP a requirement for candidates applying for an L3 licence directly, but only for L1 licensees who are applying for an L3 licence. She asserts that the NLMP cannot be applied as a post requisite if it is a pre-condition for obtaining an L3 licence and if it was not available at the time she obtained her L3 licence.
[36] As noted earlier, subsection 80(1) of the Act gives the Board broad authority to approve by-laws that establish classes of licences and to impose licensing conditions or restrictions. Subsection 33(2) explicitly notes that licensees are subject to any restrictions or conditions that the College may lawfully impose under the legislation.
[37] Section 10.8 of the By-law likewise provides authority to the College to impose restrictions or conditions on the right of any person to practice as an RCIC.
[38] Subsection 10.4(b) of the By-law imposes the NLMP as a requirement on individuals who apply for an L3 licence “on or after July 1, 2022”
. Pursuant to subsection 10.4(b), any individual who on or after July 1, 2022 “has been licensed as a Class L1 licensee pursuant to section 10.2 for a period of not less than six (6) months”
, whose L1 licence is in good standing at the time of application, and who “has successfully completed”
the NLMP, shall be admitted as a Class L3 licensee.
[39] Subsection 10.4(b) of the By-law does not specifically highlight applicants who, like the Applicant, applied for an L3 licence directly through the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law. Nor does it specifically highlight individuals, like the Applicant, who qualified for an L3 licence before the NLMP program was made available.
[40] However, the applicability of the NLMP on those applicants is expressly noted through section 1 and the “Application and Scope”
section of the NLMP Policy. As set out earlier:
-
section 1 of the NLMP Policy states that every licensee who received their LOA on or after July 1, 2022 must complete the NLMP within one year of obtaining their license;
-
the “Application and Scope”
section of the NLMP Policy confirms that it applies to graduates of the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law who receive their LOA as Class L3 licensees.
[41] The educational requirements for Class L3 licensure are also referenced in the “Eligibility to Obtain Class L3 Licence RCIC-IRB Unrestricted Practice Policy”
[L3 Policy]. Section 3.1 of the L3 Policy specifies that an individual is eligible to obtain a Class L3 licence by the successful completion of the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law program.
[42] As section 4.1 of the By-law deems that all licensees have agreed to inter alia, the terms of the By-laws and policies of the College, it is my view that the College did not err nor act outside its jurisdiction in imposing an NLMP requirement on the Applicant.
[43] The Applicant argues that the NLMP requirement that was imposed upon her sets out a different timing restriction than that set out in the Policy. While the Policy requires completion of the NLMP within 12 months of obtaining an L3 licence, the LOA requires the Applicant to complete the NLMP within 12 months of the LOA or the first 2 available intakes, whichever was the greater span of time.
[44] The Respondent concedes that there is a small group of applicants that were caught in a transition period where the 12-months specified in the NLMP Policy had expired and the NLMP, while available during the 12-months, was not yet ready for their enrollment. Counsel for the Respondent asserts that instead of refusing to licence these applicants, the College implemented a compromise which extended the time for completion of the NLMP while not delaying L3 certification. It asserts that this was fully communicated to the Applicant in the LOA and that the authority for doing so is provided in the legislative scheme, and in particular the broad authority given under section 33(2) of the Act and section 10.8 of the By-law.
[45] The Respondent cites to Green v Law Society of Manitoba, 2017 SCC 20 [Green] which considered a challenge by a Manitoba lawyer to the Law Society rules that imposed a suspension on licensees that did not complete their yearly continuing professional development [CPD] requirements. In upholding the Law Society’s rules in that case, the Supreme Court of Canada noted the broad public interest mandate of the Law Society as reflected in their applicable legislative scheme and their equally broad regulatory powers to accomplish their mandate (at paras 27-32). It reasoned that if the Law Society had the power to create the CPD requirements in the first place, it must also have the necessary powers, whether expressly granted or by implication, to accomplish the objectives of the statutory scheme (at para 42).
[46] While this case is not about CPD requirements, I agree with the Respondent that nonetheless an analogy can be made. Like in Green, here the College has a strong public interest mandate and has been granted broad powers to regulate its licensees, including through professionalism requirements like the NLMP which are intended to aid licensees in their practice. As the Act allowed the College to create the NLMP, by implication, the College must therefore necessarily have the ability to regulate licensees who are required to take the NLMP and impose restrictions to ensure this licensing requirement is fulfilled.
[47] In my view, the College did not act outside their jurisdiction when imposing the NLMP requirement on the Applicant.
B. Was the decision to decline the Applicant’s exemption/waiver request reasonable?
[48] The Applicant contends that the Decision was unreasonable as she could not complete the NLMP within the proposed timeline as it was not available to her. She asserts that the Registrar erred by not considering that she was a graduate of the Queen’s University program and as such, exempt from the NLMP.
[49] As already stated, the College had the authority to create the NLMP and to determine who was required to take the program to meet the College’s objectives. This included the authority to impose restrictions on licensees as to the completion of the NLMP.
[50] The NLMP requirement was lawfully imposed through the College’s statutory framework and is reflected in the By-law and NLMP Policy.
[51] While the Applicant argues that a separate policy, the L3 Policy established otherwise, I cannot agree with this argument. When read in context, it is clear that the L3 Policy is intended to address the educational requirements for Class L3 Licensure, not to make exemptions from the NLMP. While section 3.1 of the L3 Policy speaks to “Exemptions from Approved Pathways”
there is no reference to, or discussion of, the NLMP.
[52] Consistent with the By-law, section 1 of the NLMP Policy states that every licensee who received their LOA on or after July 1, 2022 must complete the NLMP within one year of obtaining their licence. The “Application and Scope”
section of the NLMP Policy expressly makes clear that it applies to graduates of the Queen’s University Graduate Diploma in Immigration and Citizenship Law who receive their LOA as Class L3 licensees.
[53] As the NLMP was not yet offered at the time the Applicant received her L3 licence, she was advised in her LOA that she was required to complete the NLMP within 12 months or within the first 2 available intakes, whichever was later.
[54] While I agree that the Decision was brief, it must be read within the context of the ongoing correspondence between the Applicant and the College regarding the NLMP. The Decision advised the Applicant of the key reasons why her exemption was denied, namely that: the NLMP is mandatory for all RCICs who received their LOA on or after July 1, 2022; that the NLMP requirement had been communicated to prospective licensees and was being applied to all licensees who became licensed as of or after that date; and that the College does not grant exceptions.
[55] The Applicant has not established that the Decision was unreasonable.
C. Has there been a breach of procedural fairness?
[56] In determining whether there is a breach of procedural fairness, the Court must consider the five non-exhaustive factors set out in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) at paragraphs 23-27, namely:
(1) the nature of the decision and the process followed in making it;
(2) the nature of the statutory scheme and the precise statutory provisions under which the body operates;
(3) the importance of the decision to the individual affected;
(4) the legitimate expectations of the party challenging the decision; and
(5) the choice of procedure made by the administrator and the nature of the deference afforded.
[57] This Court recently considered the issue of procedural fairness in the context of a decision involving the College in Ramizi v College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, 2025 FC 692 [Ramizi]. In that case, the applicant applied to become an RCIC but failed the qualifying exam four times. After his fourth attempt, he asked the College to allow him to rewrite the exam based on procedural deficiencies he asserted experiencing when writing the exam, but the request was denied. The Court found that a low level of procedural fairness applied to the College’s decision and concluded that procedural fairness had not been breached by the College’s refusal to allow the Applicant to take the exam a fifth time when the Entry to Practice Regulation enacted pursuant to the By-law in place limited the number of exam attempts to four.
[58] In my view, the same principles of analysis that were applied in Ramizi to the procedural fairness argument are equally applicable here.
(1) The nature of the Decision and the decision-making process
[59] Like in Ramizi, the Decision here is administrative in nature: it involves an informal request by the Applicant to be exempted from the NLMP requirement for her L3 RCIC licence. The Decision bears none of the hallmarks of a judicial decision, such as the right to make submissions in an adversarial context, a right to be represented by counsel, or a right to appeal. This points to a low level of procedural fairness.
(2) The nature of the statutory scheme and the precise statutory provisions pursuant to which the public body operates
[60] The nature of the statutory scheme and statutory requirements under which the College operates also indicates a low level of procedural fairness in respect of the Decision. The same analysis conducted by Justice Battista in Ramizi applies:
[52] [ ...], the legislation provides the [College’s] Board with a wide-ranging authority to enact by-laws “respecting any matter necessary to carry on the activities of the College” (s 80(1)), including with respect to licenses and licensing requirements (s 80(1)(n)-(o)). Furthermore, the By-Law provides the authority for enacting regulations and policies (s 3.1), sets out the eligibility criteria for licensees (s 10), and provides the parameters for the governance of professional conduct and disciplinary proceedings (ss 24-41). This includes the power to issue licenses, which is only a mandatory obligation on the Registrar once a candidate meets the eligibility requirements set out in the by-laws ([Act], s 33).
[53] This larger statutory and regulatory context illustrates the [College]’s role in defining who is a qualified licensee and the procedures in place for licensing, considering the public interest of ensuring high quality licensees, as well as the [College]’s wide control and independence in the licensing process.
[...]
[55] Moreover, in balancing professional regulation and the rights of individuals to practice as RCICs, the legislation signals a clear emphasis on protection of the public interest by establishing a robust discipline and complaint regime, giving relatively little attention to rights to enter and maintain an immigration consultant practice, and providing great autonomy to the [College] in the development of its admission policies.
(3) The level of importance of the Decision
[61] The nature of the decision further implies a low level of procedural fairness as the Decision has no immediate or certain impact on the Applicant’s L3 licence or her ability to practice as an RCIC. While failure to complete the NLMP could impact her licence in the future, this has not yet occurred and if the Applicant completes the NLMP, she will be in the same position as all other RCICs in her cohort.
(4) Legitimate expectations
[62] The requirement to complete the NLMP was expressly stated in the By-law before the Applicant registered in her program at Queen’s University. It was also published on the College’s website and appeared in the NLMP Policy. The Applicant had several communications with the College regarding the NLMP that indicated her recognition of the program and its requirement on licensees. While the Applicant argues that there were certain circumstances that made her exempt from the NLMP, there could be no legitimate expectation that an exemption would be given as there was no past practice of exemption in the Applicant’s circumstance, or otherwise.
(5) The College’s choice of procedure
[63] The College has significant discretion under the Act to create its own licensing policies and procedures. The College informed the Applicant in her LOA that she was required to complete the NLMP and the conditions surrounding its completion. It did not provide a procedure for requesting an exemption as one was not contemplated because the requirement was intended to apply to all licensees. The College entertained the Applicant’s exemption letter and provided a response. The process leading to the Decision was procedurally fair and sound.
[64] The Applicant asserts that the College acted out of retaliatory intent and in bad faith. She asserts that Roncarelli v Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC) and Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 support her position. I do not find these cases to be of assistance. Further, the Applicant has not provided any evidence to establish retaliatory intent or bad faith in this context.
[65] In my view, there has been no breach of procedural fairness.
[66] For all these reasons, the application is dismissed.
[67] As the Respondent has been successful on the application, they shall be entitled to costs. Considering that the Applicant is a self-represented litigant, costs shall be fixed at $1,500.
Email this Content