+1 416 895 3026
Fee Calculator 
Judicial review is not an appeal. The Federal Court does not re-decide your application or form its own view about whether you deserve a visa. It asks a narrower question: was the officer’s decision reasonable, and was the process fair. If the answer is no, the usual remedy is that the decision is set aside and your file goes back to a different officer.
That distinction determines what wins. Arguments about how deserving you are almost never succeed. Arguments about what the officer ignored, misapplied or never told you succeed regularly.
It also determines who should bother. Most refused applicants should not go to the Federal Court, and this page is as much about recognising that as it is about the process.
The deadline, first
Under section 72(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, an application for leave and for judicial review must be served and filed within:
- 15 days if the matter arose in Canada
- 60 days if the matter arose outside Canada
The clock runs from the day you are notified of, or become aware of, the decision. An extension can be sought for special reasons but must be requested in the application and justified.
Because GCMS notes routinely take longer than 15 days to arrive, the conventional approach is to file within the deadline to preserve your position, obtain the notes, then decide whether to continue. Discontinuing is straightforward. Reviving an application you never filed is not.
How the process runs
Judicial review in immigration matters has two stages: leave, and then the review itself. Most applications end at the leave stage.
| Step | What happens | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| 1. File and serve | Application for leave and for judicial review filed with the Court and served on the respondent Minister | 15 or 60 days from notification |
| 2. Proof of service | Filed with the Court | Within 10 days of service |
| 3. Notice of appearance | Respondent indicates it will participate | Within 10 days of being served |
| 4. Reasons requested | Where written reasons were not provided, the Court requests them from the tribunal under Rule 9 | — |
| 5. Perfect the application | The applicant’s record is filed: the application, the decision, the reasons, supporting affidavits and a memorandum of argument | See note below |
| 6. Respondent’s memorandum | Minister files affidavits and argument | 30 days after receiving the record |
| 7. Reply | Optional | Within 10 days |
| 8. Leave decided | A judge decides on the papers whether the case proceeds. This decision cannot be appealed. | Varies |
| 9. Hearing | If leave is granted, a hearing is scheduled | Currently often beyond 18 months from filing |
A note on step 5. Rule 10 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules (SOR/93-22) provides 30 days to perfect. In response to the backlog, the Federal Court issued a Practice Direction and Special Order on 14 May 2025 — the Notice to the Profession on the ALJR backlog — extending that period by a further 45 days, giving applicants up to 75 days. Because the extension arises from a Special Order rather than an amendment to the Rules, confirm it remains in force at the time of filing rather than assuming it.
Why the timeline matters more than the law
Immigration filings at the Federal Court rose from roughly 6,400 in 2020 to more than 28,000 in 2025, with over 6,600 more in the first quarter of 2026 alone. Immigration matters now represent approximately 86% of the Court’s total caseload, handled by 44 sitting judges. Hearings once listed around a year out are now commonly scheduled well past eighteen months.
This is the single most important practical fact on this page. If your business needs someone in Canada this year, a judicial review that resolves in two years may be right on principle and wrong commercially. Leave rates in immigration matters are also historically low, which means a substantial proportion of applications end at stage 8 having consumed time and cost without reaching a hearing at all.
None of that makes judicial review pointless. It makes case selection decisive.
What actually wins
The governing standard for most immigration decisions is reasonableness, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. A reasonable decision must be internally coherent and justified in light of the legal and factual constraints on the decision-maker. Procedural fairness is assessed separately, on the framework in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.
| Ground | Why it works |
|---|---|
| Failure to consider central evidence | Where evidence squarely contradicting the officer’s conclusion was on file and the reasons never engage with it, the decision is not justified in light of the record |
| Breach of procedural fairness | Where the officer relied on a concern the applicant was never given a chance to answer — no fairness letter, or one that did not disclose the real concern |
| Inadequate reasons | Boilerplate reciting the statutory test without applying it to the applicant’s facts does not permit meaningful review |
| Wrong legal test | For example, treating a declared intention to seek permanent residence as fatal to a temporary permit, when section 22(2) of IRPA expressly permits dual intent |
| Findings unsupported by the record | Conclusions drawn from speculation, or from facts appearing nowhere in the file |
| Fettering discretion | Applying an internal guideline as though it were binding, without considering the individual case |
What does not win: disagreeing with how the officer weighed the evidence. The Court will not reweigh. If the officer considered your evidence and reached a conclusion you dislike but which was open to them on the record, that is not an error — and it is the most common reason applications fail at leave.
A recent development worth knowing
In Devgon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2005, decided on 18 December 2025, the Federal Court held that IRCC’s decision to return an application as “incomplete” is subject to judicial review. Justice Battista found that such a return prejudicially affects the applicant’s right to apply, that the Court is capable of assessing it for reasonableness and fairness, and that it is not insulated from review merely because it rests on non-compliance with ministerial instructions about what makes an application complete.
This matters for business applicants, whose files are frequently returned for administrative deficiencies. A returned application was widely treated as simply something to refile. It is now more clearly a reviewable administrative decision — which is significant where a return has cost you a place in a capped intake or a closing programme.
Should you go this route? An honest filter
Work through these before spending anything.
| Question | If yes |
|---|---|
| Did the officer ignore evidence that was on file? | Judicial review is worth assessing |
| Were you refused on a concern never put to you? | Judicial review is worth assessing |
| Does the refusal contain a damaging finding — genuineness, credibility, misrepresentation — that will follow you? | Worth assessing, because setting the finding aside has value beyond this application |
| Was the refusal correct on the evidence you filed, but the evidence was incomplete? | Do not litigate. Rebuild the application |
| Do you simply disagree with the officer’s weighing of the evidence? | Do not litigate. The Court will not reweigh |
| Do you need status in Canada within the next 12 months? | Litigation alone will not deliver it. Consider a parallel application |
For most refused business applicants, the honest answer is in rows four and five. A properly rebuilt application is faster, cheaper and more likely to produce the outcome you actually want, which is a permit rather than a court ruling.
How we handle judicial review files
We think it is better to be plain about this than to let you find out after you have paid for a consultation.
Litigation is not our practice. We are business immigration counsel. We do not run Federal Court files, and we deliberately do not build a practice around refusal litigation, because our view is that most refusals are better solved earlier and differently.
What we do is the assessment. We read the refusal letter and the GCMS notes, work out what the officer actually decided, and tell you which of the available routes fits your file. That assessment is real legal work and it is the part that determines your outcome — it is also, in most cases, the point at which people discover that the Federal Court is not their best option.
Where judicial review genuinely is the right answer, we say so and refer the file to counsel who conduct that work daily. Where a referral arrangement involves a fee, it is disclosed to you in writing and documented in accordance with Law Society requirements before anything proceeds. You are free to instruct anyone you choose.
Not sure whether your refusal contains a reviewable error or an evidentiary gap? Have it assessed →
What happens if you win
Set expectations correctly. If the Court allows the application, the usual outcome is that the decision is quashed and the matter returns for redetermination by a different officer. You do not receive a visa from the Court, and the new officer is not obliged to approve you — though they must decide afresh in accordance with the Court’s reasons.
In practice a redetermination following a successful judicial review is a materially stronger position: the adverse finding has been set aside, the Court’s reasons constrain the new decision-maker, and the file arrives with judicial commentary attached. A significant proportion of applications also settle before hearing, with the Minister consenting to redetermination once the record and argument are before them — often the best available outcome, and the fastest.
Next step
Find out whether this is really a Federal Court file
For most refused applicants it is not. We will read your notes and tell you plainly whether litigation is warranted — and refer you to trial counsel if it is.
Book a 1-hour strategy meeting
A boutique business immigration law firm serving entrepreneurs from more than 50 countries · Toronto & Vancouver
Frequently asked questions
Do you take Federal Court cases?
No. We assess refusals and take the files that resolve through a rebuilt application, which is the majority. Judicial review files are referred to counsel who specialise in that work, with any referral arrangement disclosed to you in writing.
Can an immigration consultant file judicial review for me?
No. Representation before the Federal Court of Canada is restricted to lawyers. An immigration consultant cannot file an application for leave and judicial review or appear at the hearing.
What are my chances of getting leave?
Leave rates in immigration matters are historically low across the board, which is precisely why case selection matters. The useful question is not the general statistic but whether your file contains an identifiable error — ignored evidence, an unaddressed concern, a misapplied test. Files with one of those are worth assessing. Files where you disagree with how the evidence was weighed generally are not.
Can I appeal if leave is refused?
No. The decision on leave is final and cannot be appealed, which is why the application must be properly perfected the first time.
Do I have to be in Canada to apply for judicial review?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring these applications, and the 60-day deadline applies where the matter arose outside Canada. You do not attend personally — counsel appears.
Can I reapply while judicial review is pending?
Generally yes, and given current Court timelines it is often the sensible course. The two files must be consistent, and an approval on the new application usually renders the judicial review moot. Sequence it deliberately.
About the author
Managing Lawyer & Founder · Licensed by the Law Society of Ontario · LSO #62387E
Rakhmad co-founded Sobirovs Law Firm over 13+ years ago to serve international entrepreneurs and companies expanding into Canada. He advises on Start-Up Visa files, C11 entrepreneur work permits, intra-company transfers and provincial entrepreneur streams. He immigrated to Canada from Uzbekistan in 2005 as a Federal Skilled Worker and became a Canadian citizen in 2011 — experience that shapes how the firm approaches every file. He works with clients in English, Uzbek, Russian and Turkish.
This page provides general information about Canadian immigration law and Federal Court procedure, and is not legal advice. Court deadlines and practice directions change; the position described here is current as of 3 August 2026 and should be confirmed before you act on it. Missing a filing deadline can end your right to challenge a decision. Speak to a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer promptly if you have received a refusal.
WE ARE MEMBERS OF
