Case ineligible due to bill C-12

[Rumman]

The judicial review will be based on statutory interpretation. Section 75 of the Bill is ambiguous. It does not make it clear which claims are subject to this clause: those that are already referred to the IRB, or those that are at the pre-referral stage. Even the Hansard of this Bill does not make it clear. Therefore, IRCC cannot act based on assumption.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

The judicial review will be based on statutory interpretation. Section 75 of the Bill is ambiguous. It does not make it clear which claims are subject to this clause: those that are already referred to the IRB, or those that are at the pre-referral stage. Even the Hansard of this Bill does not make it clear. Therefore, IRCC cannot act based on assumption.

1. "section 75 is ambiguous" - they'd lean towards Rizzo and Rizzo judgement for those and it is more about plausible interpretations: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1581/index.do - A provision isn't considered "ambiguous" just because it could be more clearer.
2. "It does not make it clear which claims are subject" - that is as an interpretive argument, courts lean towards structure, provisions, purpose, etc and very possible that courts would find the meaning sufficiently clear.
3. "Even the Hansard of this Bill does not make it clear" - they are secondary aids and the courts don't require Hansard to make it clear if the statutory text and context resolves everything.
4. "Therefore, IRCC cannot act based on assumption." - this is false. They are required to interpret and apply the law. They ACT on "reasonable interpretations" - I'd assume that before they made the decisions, those were already done. Courts can later on decide whether that interpretation would hold or not, but IRCC CAN ACT based on interpretations. Refer to #1 and #2 when it comes to courts interpreting this law. When a bill is passed, it is reviewed with a degree of research and already challenged to an extend that civil litigations won't be able to overturn. Even when a court reads this, they'll read it narrowly, which would mean that they'd send it back for a "revision" and rarely would impact the broader/bigger decisions there.

 

[Rumman]

1. "section 75 is ambiguous" - they'd lean towards Rizzo and Rizzo judgement for those and it is more about plausible interpretations: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1581/index.do - A provision isn't considered "ambiguous" just because it could be more clearer.
2. "It does not make it clear which claims are subject" - that is as an interpretive argument, courts lean towards structure, provisions, purpose, etc and very possible that courts would find the meaning sufficiently clear.
3. "Even the Hansard of this Bill does not make it clear" - they are secondary aids and the courts don't require Hansard to make it clear if the statutory text and context resolves everything.
4. "Therefore, IRCC cannot act based on assumption." - this is false. They are required to interpret and apply the law. They ACT on "reasonable interpretations" - I'd assume that before they made the decisions, those were already done. Courts can later on decide whether that interpretation would hold or not, but IRCC CAN ACT based on interpretations. Refer to #1 and #2 when it comes to courts interpreting this law. When a bill is passed, it is reviewed with a degree of research and already challenged to an extend that civil litigations won't be able to overturn. Even when a court reads this, they'll read it narrowly, which would mean that they'd send it back for a "revision" and rarely would impact the broader/bigger decisions there.

IRCC applies the law and courts review it later. Fair. The correct way to put it is: if IRCC tries to apply the new one-year bar to an already-referred claim, that decision can be challenged in court — and on the right reading of the law, it shouldn't hold.

But here's the bigger point you might be missing: forget Clause 75 for a second. Look at what Bill C-12 actually changes. Section 43 amends s.100 of IRPA — the section that deals with eligibility checks before a claim gets sent to the RPD. Even they have added a heading to the section "consideration of claims prior to referral". The whole ineligibility system, including the new one-year bar, is designed to operate at that early stage. Once a claim has already been referred to the RPD, that eligibility check is done. It's over. IRCC doesn't get to go back and redo it.

There's nothing in Bill C-12 that gives IRCC the power to pull back a claim that's already been referred and screen it again. That's not a framing argument — that's a question of whether IRCC even has the authority to do what you're describing in the first place.

So yes, IRCC acts on interpretations. But they can only act within what the law actually allows them to do. And re-screening an already-referred claim isn't something the law gives them power to do.

And on s.104 — they can't use it here for two reasons. First, s.104 is a prospective mechanism, not a tool for retroactive application of new substantive law. Second, and more importantly, look at the legislative history: every time Parliament amended s.101 to add a new ineligibility ground, it also amended s.104 to give IRCC the power to act on it against already-referred claims. That's a consistent, deliberate pattern. Bill C-12 amended s.101 but did not touch s.104. That's not an oversight — Parliament knows exactly how to amend s.104. It chose not to. You can't invoke a power Parliament chose not to grant.

Under Bell ExpressVu and Placer Dome, restrictions on refugee claimants are read narrowly. Under Gustavson Drilling and Dikranian, there is a strong presumption against retroactive application to already-crystallized claims. Under Multiform Manufacturing and Krayzel, Parliament's deliberate omission of a s.104 amendment — breaking a consistent prior pattern — means courts cannot read that power in. All three lines of authority converge on the same conclusion: s.104 cannot be used to enforce the new s.101 bar against a claim already referred to the RPD.

 

[appwarez]

The judicial review will be based on statutory interpretation. Section 75 of the Bill is ambiguous. It does not make it clear which claims are subject to this clause: those that are already referred to the IRB, or those that are at the pre-referral stage. Even the Hansard of this Bill does not make it clear. Therefore, IRCC cannot act based on assumption.

Your argument is pointing in a solid direction, but it needs tightening to land convincingly, especially if you're framing this for a judicial review. Section 75 is ambiguous because it does not specify whether it applies to claims already referred to the IRB or only to claims at the pre-referral stage. The absence of temporal qualifiers leaves both interpretations reasonably open.

 

[Rumman]

Your argument is pointing in a solid direction, but it needs tightening to land convincingly, especially if you're framing this for a judicial review. Section 75 is ambiguous because it does not specify whether it applies to claims already referred to the IRB or only to claims at the pre-referral stage. The absence of temporal qualifiers leaves both interpretations reasonably open.

So, benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant.

 

[Mas2025]

What happens next, after the deadline to respond to the PFL passes?

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

IRCC applies the law and courts review it later. Fair. The correct way to put it is: if IRCC tries to apply the new one-year bar to an already-referred claim, that decision can be challenged in court — and on the right reading of the law, it shouldn't hold.

But here's the bigger point you might be missing: forget Clause 75 for a second. Look at what Bill C-12 actually changes. Section 43 amends s.100 of IRPA — the section that deals with eligibility checks before a claim gets sent to the RPD. Even they have added a heading to the section "consideration of claims prior to referral". The whole ineligibility system, including the new one-year bar, is designed to operate at that early stage. Once a claim has already been referred to the RPD, that eligibility check is done. It's over. IRCC doesn't get to go back and redo it.

There's nothing in Bill C-12 that gives IRCC the power to pull back a claim that's already been referred and screen it again. That's not a framing argument — that's a question of whether IRCC even has the authority to do what you're describing in the first place.

So yes, IRCC acts on interpretations. But they can only act within what the law actually allows them to do. And re-screening an already-referred claim isn't something the law gives them power to do.

And on s.104 — they can't use it here for two reasons. First, s.104 is a prospective mechanism, not a tool for retroactive application of new substantive law. Second, and more importantly, look at the legislative history: every time Parliament amended s.101 to add a new ineligibility ground, it also amended s.104 to give IRCC the power to act on it against already-referred claims. That's a consistent, deliberate pattern. Bill C-12 amended s.101 but did not touch s.104. That's not an oversight — Parliament knows exactly how to amend s.104. It chose not to. You can't invoke a power Parliament chose not to grant.

Under Bell ExpressVu and Placer Dome, restrictions on refugee claimants are read narrowly. Under Gustavson Drilling and Dikranian, there is a strong presumption against retroactive application to already-crystallized claims. Under Multiform Manufacturing and Krayzel, Parliament's deliberate omission of a s.104 amendment — breaking a consistent prior pattern — means courts cannot read that power in. All three lines of authority converge on the same conclusion: s.104 cannot be used to enforce the new s.101 bar against a claim already referred to the RPD.

Your em-dashes tell me that you are using ChatGPT here and that defeats the purpose here as you can consistently find more confirmation bias with it if you use it wrongly. I once debated with ChatGPT that the earth is flat, I ended up winning that one - my point was to prove that it leans towards confirmation bias.

My arguments here:
1. Section 104 of IRPA exists because parliament anticipated that some claims might need to be terminated. You are doubting whether re-engagement is possible, but the real question would be if section 104 cover this specific new ground or not? It has been a tool for withdrawal and other scenarios, but can s.104 be extended here? Who knows? Can you fight it? Probably not.
2. “IRCC has no authority to re-screen” - There's no absence of power for IRCC here. Existing statutory powers can apply to the new categories created by amendment, unless excluded. So, the issue is statutory interpretation, not absence of power. If you go back to s.104 and a court could find that existing s.104 powers extend to the newly added ineligibility grounds.
3. Restrictions impacting refugees are often interpreted cautiously (I'd say a lot more cautiously than more think) - but those are just a weighing factors here, not decisive on their own.
4. s.101 vs s.104 - reasoning supersedes invoked principles here.

If they can go and revoke PR statuses under this new bill - I'd lean towards their research being more comprehensive here. I'm not saying that your arguments are wrong or mine or right here - but there's a lot lot more that you are missing out on when you use ChatGPT for confirmation bias here. I'd say point #2 is extremely important here.

I would be very curious to see what happens here and I'll watch it with overtime, but we've already seen some ineligibility emails sent out to a very few IRB referred applications. The entire essence is of what unarguable truth lies beneath these competing statements at the end and it will be interesting to see that.

 

[FrozenJourney]

IRCC applies the law and courts review it later. Fair. The correct way to put it is: if IRCC tries to apply the new one-year bar to an already-referred claim, that decision can be challenged in court — and on the right reading of the law, it shouldn't hold.

But here's the bigger point you might be missing: forget Clause 75 for a second. Look at what Bill C-12 actually changes. Section 43 amends s.100 of IRPA — the section that deals with eligibility checks before a claim gets sent to the RPD. Even they have added a heading to the section "consideration of claims prior to referral". The whole ineligibility system, including the new one-year bar, is designed to operate at that early stage. Once a claim has already been referred to the RPD, that eligibility check is done. It's over. IRCC doesn't get to go back and redo it.

There's nothing in Bill C-12 that gives IRCC the power to pull back a claim that's already been referred and screen it again. That's not a framing argument — that's a question of whether IRCC even has the authority to do what you're describing in the first place.

So yes, IRCC acts on interpretations. But they can only act within what the law actually allows them to do. And re-screening an already-referred claim isn't something the law gives them power to do.

And on s.104 — they can't use it here for two reasons. First, s.104 is a prospective mechanism, not a tool for retroactive application of new substantive law. Second, and more importantly, look at the legislative history: every time Parliament amended s.101 to add a new ineligibility ground, it also amended s.104 to give IRCC the power to act on it against already-referred claims. That's a consistent, deliberate pattern. Bill C-12 amended s.101 but did not touch s.104. That's not an oversight — Parliament knows exactly how to amend s.104. It chose not to. You can't invoke a power Parliament chose not to grant.

Under Bell ExpressVu and Placer Dome, restrictions on refugee claimants are read narrowly. Under Gustavson Drilling and Dikranian, there is a strong presumption against retroactive application to already-crystallized claims. Under Multiform Manufacturing and Krayzel, Parliament's deliberate omission of a s.104 amendment — breaking a consistent prior pattern — means courts cannot read that power in. All three lines of authority converge on the same conclusion: s.104 cannot be used to enforce the new s.101 bar against a claim already referred to the RPD.

too much chatGPT. IRCC has been aggressively terminating the post-referral claims using Section 101(1)(b.1) and Section 104. Are you going to sue the government?

 

[Mas2025]

Any updates anyone?

 

[cjulio]

Hi everyone. Similar situation as explained by others above:

First Entry: Feb 2024
Claim Submitted: Sep 2025
Eligibility Interview: Nov 2025
Redetermination Letter Received: Apr 1st 2026

I received a redetermination letter, not yet a final ineligibility notification (however I obviously understand it goes to it). The letter states that I had to provide more information related to my entry to Canada by Apr 22nd 2026. My lawyer did it on time. After that, nothing else has happened. The letter also said that they would still be evaluating the ineligibility of my case.

Things get much more complex, I'm from an ADR country. Family of 4 (2 minor kids).

I'm worried about the "legal limbo" for those coming from ADR countries I've read from previous comments. Honestly not sure (neither my lawyer) if we would get PRRA offered or not, or even what the process would be for us.

The only possible scenarios I could see are the following ones, but again, nothing is clear:
A- IRB Ineligibility notification - PRRA - unenforceable removal as per ADR
B- IRB Ineligibility notification - no PRRA - unenforceable removal as per ADR
C- IRB Ineligibility, BUT NO notification - no PRRA, as no notification of Ineligibility- unenforceable removal as per ADR

 

[Joel Stan]

Hello everyone,
Thank you to everyone who contributed advice and commented on my previous post. I just wanted to provide an update and seek further guidance/advice regarding my situation.
We eventually responded to the ineligibility notice with my detailed explanation. In addition, my lawyer included legal arguments and referenced some case laws, explaining why my case should be reassessed based on my specific circumstances and referred to the IRB. They also requested that the officer schedule an oral interview regarding the ineligibility matter. Nothing yet till date.
Everything was submitted within the allotted timeframe in April, and we received a confirmation acknowledgment two days later. However, up until now, we have not heard anything further from the office.
Recently, I came across information regarding the Ontario lawyers’ association victory concerning Judicial Review applications for Bill C-12 ineligibility matters proceeding under a case management process before a Federal Court judge.
I would like to apply for Judicial Review, but I am uncertain about the appropriate timing to file the application. My lawyer’s advice was to “wait until they respond to your explanation submission” before proceeding with a Judicial Review application.
I am concerned about the timing and process, and I would like to understand at what stage a Judicial Review application should be filed. Can a Judicial Review application be filed now, or is it better to wait as advised by my lawyer? I simply want to be proactive in handling my case properly.
Your advice and guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you all once again for your supports.