Canada’s Immigration Crisis: Understanding the Overwhelming Demand on Federal Courts

When Toronto immigration lawyer Siavash Shekarian reflects on the rising tide of immigration cases straining Canada’s federal courts, he doesn’t hold back. “Confusion and incompetence,” he states. In 2024, immigration and refugee cases represented a staggering 78% of all proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, up from 57% just nine years earlier in 2015. This increase is significant given that the federal courts deal not just with immigration matters, but also with tax, intellectual property, and various other legal issues.

The Surge of Applications

The federal government attributes this dramatic rise in cases to the sheer volume of immigration applications being submitted and processed. In 2024, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) processed over 10 million applications for citizenship, permanent residency, and temporary residency—a sharp rise from around 2.6 million in 2015 when Justin Trudeau’s government took power. A spokesperson for IRCC confirmed the correlation between increased applications and the growing caseload in federal courts, noting ongoing efforts to expedite processing through digitization and automation technologies.

Automation: A Double-Edged Sword

While the IRCC aims to streamline processes, many immigration lawyers argue that the increasing reliance on automation is part of the problem. The Chinook system, an Excel-based decision-making tool introduced in 2019, was designed to help officers quickly process temporary resident claims. Lev Abramovich, another Toronto immigration lawyer, points out that this tool expects officers to make decisions in mere minutes, which often leads to half-baked conclusions. “It’s half Chinook, half human,” he emphasizes.

Deanna Okun-Nachoff, a Vancouver lawyer, echoes this sentiment. While a “human in the loop” is supposed to ensure procedural fairness, she argues that the limited time spent by these humans on each application results in insufficient assessments. The IRCC counters that Chinook is meant to aid—not replace—human decision-makers, insisting that trained officers carefully analyze each application. Still, skepticism lingers among lawyers regarding the depth of scrutiny involved in decisions made under this automated system.

Inconsistent Decisions and Legal Repercussions

One of the most troubling aspects of the current immigration process is the inconsistency in decisions rendered by IRCC. According to Abramovich, denied applications often include minimal justification, leaving applicants bewildered and prompting further litigation. This inconsistency extends to seemingly identical cases yielding vastly different outcomes. Such disparities exacerbate the already burgeoning caseload in federal courts, resulting in a system that appears to prioritize expediency over thoroughness.

The non-refugee immigration cases, which include study permits and work permits, have surged by over 500% since mid-2019, further complicating this landscape. For many applicants, the pathway forward is clouded; options include reapplication or appealing to the Federal Court—yet many lawyers avoid reconsideration requests due to historical neglect by IRCC.

Strain on Federal Courts

The compounding nature of these challenges has created significant strain on federal courts. Chief Justice Paul Crampton of the Federal Court underscored this in a recent practice direction by acknowledging the “unprecedented increase” in immigration-related filings. With limited resources available, courts have struggled to keep pace, extending deadlines and creating further complications for applicants. Currently, the IRCC reports that around 760,000 active cases exceed standard processing times, leading to lengthy delays that hinder prospective immigrants from engaging in timely decisions or measures.

As a result, many potential immigrants are exploring avenues outside of Canada, with professionals like high-net-worth individuals or entrepreneurs looking at opportunities in the U.S. and Australia, where systems are perceived as more efficient. "Canada is losing high-potential entrepreneurs because it can’t get its system right," Shekarian states, indicating that the current immigration framework is failing to attract talent critical for the nation’s growth.

Towards Effective Solutions

While the Canadian government may consider curbing immigration levels—reducing the target for new permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025—immigration professionals argue that systemic reforms are necessary. Abramovitch suggests that one relatively simple solution would be to improve transparency by elaborating on the reasons behind application denials, allowing applicants to better understand their standing.

This sentiment resonates with Shekarian, who calls for the IRCC to apply more consistent admission standards. He emphasizes that immigration should not be treated like a “water hose” with indiscriminate refusals based on volume. Instead, proactive measures to attract top talent should be prioritized.

Advocating for a “red carpet” immigration experience, Shekarian envisions a system where applicants receive clarity about the law and its application, experience reliable timelines, and interact with assigned case officers who communicate consistently. Currently, many feel the opposite: a system which undermines dignity and offers little respect for applicants navigating complex procedures.

In summary, Canada’s immigration landscape is not just a matter of numbers; it’s a complex interplay of systems, human factors, and broader societal impacts. Addressing these challenges may require substantial policy shifts and a renewed commitment to enhancing the immigration experience for all applicants.