The excluded family stream has been fully reinstated

by Michael Scott

For those who have confessed their sins of omission to a priest in the confessional or directly through appeal to God it may come as an unpleasant surprise that the Canadian department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (IRCC) is not as forgiving to sponsors who omitted family members at the time they applied for their permanent residence. You may or may not be aware of the exclusion clause found in Regulations s.117(9)(d), “a foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if… (d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.” The omission is considered a serious fault and results in a lifetime restriction from sponsorship to Canada.

It does not come as a surprise to many sponsors who have received a refusal notice that their sponsorship was refused because their biological child or spouse or partner was undeclared and unexamined at the time they were landed. The reasons for their actions are in most cases inadvertent and resulted from following bad advice. There is an old adage, “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.” The IRCC letter that references R117(9)(d) is threatening at the extreme. The undeclared innocent child who committed no wrong can be banned from sponsorship for their lifetime. In comparative terms, the persons barred for serious criminality can be rehabilitated and sponsored to Canada under the Family Stream.

I have watched with deep interest the challenges raised against the exclusion clause from the tenure of Minister Adhmed Hussein who brought in a two-year pilot to combat the disproportionate impact of the lifetime exclusion in September 2019. His words were hopeful for the sponsors covered by the pilot.

“Newcomers who failed to declare immediate family members as they first came to Canada were barred to sponsor them, today we right the wrong.”

The ministerial relief did bring relief for some, but many, especially those who came under the economic streams, were excluded. Relief for some was better than relief for none. The pilot was extended several times until September 2026 and now it has been rescinded.

The pilot was valuable for refugee applicants but could be cited as examples for other classes not covered, such as skilled workers. The plight of the undeclared child affects all children, not just those from refugee families. The pilot became another reference to highlight the unfairness of the exclusion clause. It could have been removed a long time ago, or better still, never introduced by the anti-immigration lobby outside the government and within the department, which still holds sway. The return of the full weight of the restrictions was not expected but it is here anyway.

On September 11, 2026, the Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab quietly let the pilot expire without debate and without giving refugee advocates any explanation. Like many interested parties, I waited for IRCC to expand that relief to other sponsors, but they did not. Insiders said that affected persons can apply for special relief from the exclusion clause under humanitarian and compassionate considerations, but this is not the same as ending an unfair lifetime exclusion.

If you or someone you know fall under R117(9)(d), it is possible to challenge the provision if a compelling argument can be raised, but the better policy was to petition government to change things. It was unfair for applicants in 1992 with the introduction of the Immigration Act (IRPA) and unfair today. The actions of the department are not proactive and need to be changed.

It is important to understand that even in Canada there is a strong lobby against immigration that advocates stricter measures such as a lifetime ban. This does provide grounds for raising a humanitarian and compassionate request under IRPA s.25(1), but the clearer path was to follow the logical steps from Minister Hussein to right the wrongs of the past. However, the opposition continues to this day and Minister Diab is just another elected member who does not know that a refusal for misrepresentation under IRPA s.40(1) is still in place to prosecute deliberate misrepresentation or serious criminality. IRPR s.117(9)(d) punishes innocent omission as a more serious offence. This is overreach that should be removed, not reinstated.

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.