Public policy exemptions removed

by Michael Scott

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) moved suddenly to remove one of the options for applicants who do not fit the accepted application requirements across a broad sweep of applications. The temporary public policy came into effect on October 5, 2022, and was set to expire on the same day in 2029. The policy came in with a warning that “this temporary policy may be revoked at any time, without any prior notice.” The time has arrived earlier than expected and as of July 23, 2026, IRCC has ended the policy exemption.

The times have changed. This made sense in 2022 but what about 2026? The initial reason for the policy was to provide fast, flexible solutions for unique situations such as allowing workers to change jobs quickly, waiving medical exams or granting status without changing permanent laws. Now the policy is cancelled and some options previously open are closed. The change does not mean that IRCC no longer cares about providing other options for applicants inside the country, but other factors now apply. We have become accustomed to complaints about too may temporary residents in the country, the scarcity of housing, the rising costs to the infrastructure and medical expenditures, so we concede that IRCC must change something to decrease the numbers of foreign visitors, workers and students inside the country.

The change in public policy is one of the discretionary relief options that was open to persons inside the country. It is important to take note of the options available to needy applicants that were in place.

Many readers are aware of the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) exemption available in the Immigration Act under section 25(1). A foreign national inside Canada can request an exemption from any application criteria or obligation of the act. The Supreme Court decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada, 2015 SCC1 described the section as a “safety value” against any hard interpretation of the Immigration Act. The test of discretion is whether “any descent, fair-minded Canadian would find it simply acceptable to deny the relief sought?” (Chirwa test). The request for an H&C exemption remains open and is available for discretionary relief.

Another relief option is available for the departmental staff. Under section 25.1 the minister or delegate has an ex officio power to grant H&C discretion without an applicant request. It is used sparingly in political cases.

The third option is the one under discussion. The public policy considerations are set forth in Sections 25.2 (1): “The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.”

The absence of limitations “from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act” were welcome in 2022 and it is unfortunate that they are cancelled now. How can any applicant respond in a manner to overcome IRCC concerns about their submission? It is important for the applicant to ensure that their submission is complete and is based directly on the policy text. For example, residency requirements. The respondent must ensure that they meet the requirement. Do not assume that IRCC will send a procedural fairness request for the missing information. You have a chance to answer the question, so it is best to focus and respond.

There is also the possibility of requesting humanitarian and compassionate relief under IRPA s.25(1). The action is a genuine way to address the shortcomings in the situation. The client can try to explain the challenges they face and request an exception in their response. It is important to note that the H&C request can be a standalone application submission or a response tempered by factors beyond the control of the applicant.

There are situations that are beyond H&C requests such as a stay of removal, and it is not applicable under the IRPA section 34 (security), section 35 (human or international rights violations), section 37 (organized criminal activity) or concurrent claims such as a pending refugee determination hearing.

One remedy is an appeal to federal court, which can only be pursued by a licensed immigration lawyer. Consultants do not have the authority to pursue such relief as leave to apply to the federal court and subsequent application to the federal court. There is still a chance for redress in such cases, but the decision rendered on July 23, 2026 removes some of options open to defend the rights of visitors, student and workers in the temporary resident classes.

Michael Scott is a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC, R525678) who has 30 years of experience with Immigration Canada and the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. He currently works as a licensed consultant with Immigration Connexion International Ltd. Contact him at 204-691-1166 or 204-227-0292. E-mail: mscott.ici@gmail.com.