When a government department repeatedly ignores the courts, it ceases to be a minor administrative oversight; it becomes a systemic threat to the rule of law.
In Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2026 FC 333), the Federal Court delivered a sharp rebuke to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Justice A. Grant awarded costs against the Minister — a rare sanction under Federal Court immigration rules — after an Indian couple had their Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) refused three consecutive times on essentially identical, boilerplate grounds.
What Happened In Kumar
The facts of Kumar reveal an unsettling pattern. Subash and Rashmi Kumar sought to visit their two children studying in Canada. They applied in February 2024, were refused, and sought judicial review. Rather than defend the flawed refusal in court, the Department of Justice (DOJ) settled and agreed to send the application back for a fresh look. IRCC then rejected it again. Once more, the DOJ settled. Upon a third review, IRCC issued yet another generic rejection.
The court correctly called out the core absurdities of the refusal:
- Ignoring “pull factors”: IRCC fixated on the presence of the couple’s children in Canada while ignoring substantial ties to India, including business ownership, employment, an elderly parent requiring care, and a spotless record of international travel compliance.
- Weaponizing IRPA’s mandate: The primary statutory purpose of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) includes family reunification. IRCC’s logic treated the very purpose of their trip — visiting their children — as the sole disqualifying evidence that they would not leave.
- The “reconsideration carousel”: By repeatedly accepting settlements only to reissue identical refusals upon reconsideration, the administrative apparatus creates a costly loop that exhausts applicants emotionally and financially.
A Pattern The Profession Has Already Flagged
As noted by the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) and referenced by Justice Grant, this dynamic is becoming alarmingly routine. When IRCC officers issue copy-paste rejections for files returned via DOJ consent or court orders, it erodes public confidence in the immigration system and treats judicial oversight as a minor inconvenience rather than a binding constraint.
What The Court’s Response Signals
While Justice Grant stopped short of declaring a “directed verdict” (an order forcing visa issuance) or making a formal finding of bias, his decision signals that judicial patience is wearing thin. By ordering an expedited 30-day redetermination and awarding costs, the court sent a clear message: procedural delays and superficial decision-making carry consequences.
Ending The Carousel
It is time for the IRCC department directorate to align with the Department of Justice and address this culture of administrative inertia. When a case is set aside for reconsideration, it requires a genuine, open-minded re-evaluation — not a re-stamping of the previous officer’s notes.
Until IRCC instructs its front-line personnel to follow basic standards of administrative fairness, applicants will remain trapped in an endless loop of litigation, and Canadian courts will be forced to step in to protect the integrity of the law. Applicants caught in that loop should not assume a fresh submission will break it; where a refusal is unreasonable on its face, the remedy lies in challenging the decision itself.