Stewart Sharma Harsanyi

10/12/2026

Setting aside a negative decision can be challenging; firm founder Raj Sharma provides a case comment regarding or raising an allegation of ineffective/negligent representation before the federal court. Such allegations should not be made lightly and require the applicant to meet a high bar. Counsel must also follow the appropriate protocol in place.

https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/100197

10/12/2026

Warm wishes from all of us at SSH Law

10/01/2026

Our thoughts on the temporary resident permit -TRP -under s.24 of the Act. Likely oversubscribed and the reason for it the huge numbers of temporary residents/foreign nationals in Canada with shrinking options to remain. There is a gap between the jurisprudence which argues for more flexibility and official IRCC guidance which seeks it seems to elevate the evaluative threshold and put in place language somewhat reminiscent of H&C decision making pre-Kanthasamy. The TRP remains a valuable tool, but caution should be exercised in presenting it as an option to every case of non-compliance/inadmissibility:

Immigration, Family and Criminal Law

09/25/2026

Mandamus as a remedy for a stalled RPD file:

Immigration, Family and Criminal Law

09/11/2026

IRCC’s public policy for sponsoring certain undeclared family members expired on September 10, 2026. For about six years (through extensions), that policy let some permanent residents sponsor a spouse, partner, or dependent child they had not declared when they obtained PR — but only in limited categories.

Applications IRCC received on or before September 10, 2026 can still be assessed under the expired policy. Applications submitted after that date are not covered. The usual exclusion for undeclared/unexamined family members applies again.

The remaining option is a request for humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) consideration in the individual sponsorship file. H&C is exceptional and highly discretionary. Without a strong, well-documented request, refusal is likely.

If you previously omitted a spouse or child from your own PR application and now want to sponsor them, get advice before you file. The supporting evidence and how the request is framed matter.

IRCC’s expired-policy page:

Public policy for undeclared family members

08/24/2026

What kind of detail is needed in a PFL alleging misrepresentation concerns?

The jurisprudence continues to evolve just how detailed a procedural fairness letter must be when misrepresentation is alleged. Justice Battista wants more than the minimum and for him the “gist” is not going to be enough for a misrepresentation concern. In a pair of decisions—Agyemang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30 and Odobo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49, the Court concluded that every misrepresentation finding attracts the high end of the procedural fairness spectrum, regardless of the underlying application type. On that view, the high standard specifically requires full disclosure of the decision-maker’s concerns as reflected in the file notes, together with any extrinsic evidence that gave rise to those concerns (and justification for any withholding).

However, in a subsequent decision, Justice Gleeson offered additional, moderating context. While acknowledging the heightened duty that flows from the consequences of a five-year bar, he declined to treat every misrepresentation case as automatically high-end. Applying the flexible, context-specific approach mandated by Baker, Gleeson J. reaffirmed the long-standing “gist” requirement but insisted that even the gist must convey the specific concern with sufficient clarity to permit a meaningful response.

Counsel should therefore treat a vague, minimalist or conclusory PFL as an invitation both to demand particulars (and the underlying GCMS notes) and, if necessary, to challenge the inadequate PFL on judicial review.

08/16/2026

Firm founder Raj Sharma KC interviewed by Terry Davidson of Law360 on a recent high-profile case. His comments below:

Singh’s lawyer, Raj Sharma, told Law360 Canada they are now considering a claim of habeas corpus in their efforts to secure a release.

“If we’re going into this merry-go-round or ping-pong match of detention reviews, at a certain point the immigration approach may be exhausted — we may be hitting a wall,” said Sharma, of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi in Alberta. “Another option may be to advance a habeas corpus application in a superior provincial court. That’s probably where we’ll pivot if he’s still in custody. The criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.”

On this point, Sharma noted the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, [2019] S.C.J. No. 29, which dealt with habeas corpus and its role in protecting people from being illegally detained.

Habeas corpus, a centuries-old legal tool meaning “produce the body,” is a concept recognizing that taking away someone’s freedom should be a last resort.

Sharma commented on the position he put forth in the Federal Court.

“Our argument was that the Federal Court and the Supreme Court [of Canada] has urged restraint in reviewing decisions by an expert tribunal,” said Sharma. “Our argument was that the determination of the suitability of a bondsperson is not going to be — and should not be — up to the government or the minister’s counsel or government lawyers. … And … you know the federal court doesn’t have any, perhaps, particular insight, either. … And the Immigration Division, which does thousands of these sorts of hearings every single year, they saw all of the evidence, they saw the thousand-plus pages of disclosure and … had regard to all of the prior detention reviews and made a decision that was justifiable on the facts. Obviously, [the Federal Court] disagreed with them.”

A foreign national from India being held in immigration detention due to allegations of murder in his homeland and suspected ties to a terrorist group is considering a claim of habeas corpus in his ongoing fight for release.

08/16/2026

Success at the RAD or Refugee Appeal Division. Three cases, refugee claims against the PRC, were denied by relatively new board members at the RPD. Grateful, of course, that the appeals were successful and noting at the same time that refugee claims themselves have gotten a lot harder. Things have changed across all immigration business lines.

08/15/2026

Restoration of status is NOT a shield against CBSA enforcement.

From the official CBSA enforcement manual (ENF 5 – Writing 44(1) Reports, updated 2025-02-20):

Scenario 1 (you’ve already applied within the 90 days and are otherwise admissible):

Officers won't generally write an A44(1) report. They usually wait for IRCC’s decision (consistent with Sui v. Canada, 2006 FC 1314).

Scenario 2 (you’re out of status, still inside the 90-day window, but have not applied yet):

There is nothing in the IRPA or Regulations that stops an officer from writing an inadmissibility report right now.

The officer keeps full discretion. They are told to weigh factors such as:
• Do you say you want to stay, and why?
• Have you already booked departure?
• Are you being evasive about your plans?
• Past compliance history?
• Will you actually show up for future interviews / leave voluntarily?

If the officer believes you’ll apply, they might wait for the 90 days to expire… but they don’t have to. If you've been called in or have encountered the immigration authorities it's hard to see an officer giving the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line:
Filing (or planning to file) a restoration application does not automatically protect you from an A44 report or removal proceedings. CBSA officers retain case-by-case discretion the entire time.

Don’t treat the 90-day restoration window as a pass.

08/11/2026

Success at the RPD, the Refugee Protection Division, for two of our lawyers today. One claim was a family seeking refuge against Nepal. The other was a domestic violence survivor alleging a risk in China. Congratulations to our clients and best wishes for their lives in Canada!