|
Date: 20260116 |
|
Docket: IMM-15711-24
Citation: 2026 FC 71 |
|
Toronto, Ontario, January 16, 2026 |
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
SIBLINGS: Saleha Khatoon Ubaid & Muhammad Azeem Ubaid |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] By a notice of application for leave and judicial review filed on August 28, 2024, Ms. Ubaid and Mr. Ubaid (collectively “the Applicants”
) seek judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”
), refusing the issuance of a Temporary Visitor’s Visa (“visitor’s visa”
) to Ms. Ubaid. The decision was made on June 20, 2024.
[2] The Applicants named the “Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship”
as the respondent.
[3] There is no such “Minister”
although there is a Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The style of cause will hereby be amended to name the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration”
as the respondent (the “Respondent”
).
[4] On December 17, 2025, the Respondent submitted a Notice of Motion and Motion Record for consideration without personal appearance, pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R/98-106 (the “Rules”
), seeking the following relief:
an Order pursuant to sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act:
a) granting the application for judicial review;
b) sets aside the visa officer’s refusal decision, dated June 20, 2024;
c) referred the Applicant’s visitor visa application back for re-determination by a different visa officer; and
d) no costs to either party
[5] The Respondent’s Notice of Motion was supported by the affidavit, sworn on December 17, 2025, of Ms. Meagan Demedeiros. Ms. Demedeiros is a paralegal employed by the Federal Department of Justice, Counsel for the Respondent in this matter.
[6] Ms. Demedeiros deposed as to the history of this litigation, including settlement offers made by the Respondent.
[7] In support of his Motion, the Respondent conceded that the decision of the Officer failed to meet the required standard of procedural fairness, and that this concession makes the underlying application moot.
[8] On December 30, 2025, the Applicants filed their responding Motion Record. This Motion Record includes the affidavit of Ms. Ubaid, one of the Applicants. In this affidavit, declared on December 29, 2025, Ms. Ubaid deposed as to the history of her application for a visitor’s visa, the refusal of her application, the commencement of this litigation and perfection of the application record, the issuance of a production Order on November 26, 2025, and the settlement offers made by the Respondent.
[9] The Applicants also included “Written Submissions”
in their Motion Record, opposing the Respondent’s Motion for judgment, on grounds including breach of their human rights. They requested payment of punitive damages in the nominal amount of $1.00.
[10] The Respondent filed a Reply to the Applicants’ arguments and maintained his position that the Court should issue a judgment now, allowing the application and remitting it for redetermination.
[11] It is not necessary for me to review the submissions of the parties in detail. As noted by the Respondent, the decision in question was made by a statutory decision maker, pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) (the “Act”
) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations S.O.R/2002-227 (the “Regulations”
).
[12] The remedies upon an application for judicial review, as set out in subsection 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 are discretionary. The “usual”
remedy upon a successful application for judicial review is to set aside the decision under challenge and to remit the matter to a different decision maker for re-determination.
[13] I am satisfied on the basis of the admissions and arguments made by the Respondent that the decision of the Officer in this case does not meet the required standard of procedural fairness. This is a reviewable error upon which the application for judicial review can be granted.
[14] I note, and accept, the submissions of the Respondent that it is in the interests of justice, including the interests of judicial economy, to grant the motion for judgment.
[15] There is no basis for the award of punitive damages in this case and none will be awarded.
[16] In the result, the Respondent’s motion will be granted. Since the effect of granting the motion is a final decision, a judgment will issue.
Email this Content