Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

JR - SOR - Exceptions - Immigration Appeals [failed exception]

. Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [NOT an exception]

In Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal, this from a Federal Court of Appeal decision (that from a judicial review at the Federal Court) that held that "it was reasonable for the IAD ['Immigration Appeal Division'] to have found that “it does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to subsection 63(2) [SS: 'Right to appeal — visa and removal order'] of the [IRPA] if the permanent resident visa is expired at the time the removal order is issued”.

Note: IRPA 63(2) provides that a "foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision to make a removal order against them made under subsection 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing".

Here the court confirmed the JR SOR of 'reasonableness' for IRPA s.63(2) appeal issues:

[41] This Court has been intentionally cautious about recognizing new categories of correctness, and there is no reason to dislodge the presumption of reasonableness review as applied to the IAD’s interpretation of s. 63(2) of its home statute. The Court reached the same conclusion in Mason, where this Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, and that was not changed or displaced by the certified question regime under s. 74(d) of the IRPA, under which the FC may certify a question for the FCA (para. 48). Recognizing a new correctness category here would conflict with Vavilov’s goal of simplifying the standard of review framework and making it more predictable by providing only limited exceptions to reasonableness review (Mason, at para. 53). New categories will be recognized only in the most exceptional of circumstances. This is not the case here. Reasonableness is the appropriate standard of review.