Stewart Sharma Harsanyi

08/24/2026

What kind of detail is needed in a PFL alleging misrepresentation concerns?

The jurisprudence continues to evolve just how detailed a procedural fairness letter must be when misrepresentation is alleged. Justice Battista wants more than the minimum and for him the “gist” is not going to be enough for a misrepresentation concern. In a pair of decisions—Agyemang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30 and Odobo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49, the Court concluded that every misrepresentation finding attracts the high end of the procedural fairness spectrum, regardless of the underlying application type. On that view, the high standard specifically requires full disclosure of the decision-maker’s concerns as reflected in the file notes, together with any extrinsic evidence that gave rise to those concerns (and justification for any withholding).

However, in a subsequent decision, Justice Gleeson offered additional, moderating context. While acknowledging the heightened duty that flows from the consequences of a five-year bar, he declined to treat every misrepresentation case as automatically high-end. Applying the flexible, context-specific approach mandated by Baker, Gleeson J. reaffirmed the long-standing “gist” requirement but insisted that even the gist must convey the specific concern with sufficient clarity to permit a meaningful response.

Counsel should therefore treat a vague, minimalist or conclusory PFL as an invitation both to demand particulars (and the underlying GCMS notes) and, if necessary, to challenge the inadequate PFL on judicial review.

08/16/2026

Firm founder Raj Sharma KC interviewed by Terry Davidson of Law360 on a recent high-profile case. His comments below:

Singh’s lawyer, Raj Sharma, told Law360 Canada they are now considering a claim of habeas corpus in their efforts to secure a release.

“If we’re going into this merry-go-round or ping-pong match of detention reviews, at a certain point the immigration approach may be exhausted — we may be hitting a wall,” said Sharma, of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi in Alberta. “Another option may be to advance a habeas corpus application in a superior provincial court. That’s probably where we’ll pivot if he’s still in custody. The criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.”

On this point, Sharma noted the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, [2019] S.C.J. No. 29, which dealt with habeas corpus and its role in protecting people from being illegally detained.

Habeas corpus, a centuries-old legal tool meaning “produce the body,” is a concept recognizing that taking away someone’s freedom should be a last resort.

Sharma commented on the position he put forth in the Federal Court.

“Our argument was that the Federal Court and the Supreme Court [of Canada] has urged restraint in reviewing decisions by an expert tribunal,” said Sharma. “Our argument was that the determination of the suitability of a bondsperson is not going to be — and should not be — up to the government or the minister’s counsel or government lawyers. … And … you know the federal court doesn’t have any, perhaps, particular insight, either. … And the Immigration Division, which does thousands of these sorts of hearings every single year, they saw all of the evidence, they saw the thousand-plus pages of disclosure and … had regard to all of the prior detention reviews and made a decision that was justifiable on the facts. Obviously, [the Federal Court] disagreed with them.”

A foreign national from India being held in immigration detention due to allegations of murder in his homeland and suspected ties to a terrorist group is considering a claim of habeas corpus in his ongoing fight for release.

08/16/2026

Success at the RAD or Refugee Appeal Division. Three cases, refugee claims against the PRC, were denied by relatively new board members at the RPD. Grateful, of course, that the appeals were successful and noting at the same time that refugee claims themselves have gotten a lot harder. Things have changed across all immigration business lines.

08/15/2026

Restoration of status is NOT a shield against CBSA enforcement.

From the official CBSA enforcement manual (ENF 5 – Writing 44(1) Reports, updated 2025-02-20):

Scenario 1 (you’ve already applied within the 90 days and are otherwise admissible):

Officers won't generally write an A44(1) report. They usually wait for IRCC’s decision (consistent with Sui v. Canada, 2006 FC 1314).

Scenario 2 (you’re out of status, still inside the 90-day window, but have not applied yet):

There is nothing in the IRPA or Regulations that stops an officer from writing an inadmissibility report right now.

The officer keeps full discretion. They are told to weigh factors such as:
• Do you say you want to stay, and why?
• Have you already booked departure?
• Are you being evasive about your plans?
• Past compliance history?
• Will you actually show up for future interviews / leave voluntarily?

If the officer believes you’ll apply, they might wait for the 90 days to expire… but they don’t have to. If you've been called in or have encountered the immigration authorities it's hard to see an officer giving the benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line:
Filing (or planning to file) a restoration application does not automatically protect you from an A44 report or removal proceedings. CBSA officers retain case-by-case discretion the entire time.

Don’t treat the 90-day restoration window as a pass.

08/11/2026

Success at the RPD, the Refugee Protection Division, for two of our lawyers today. One claim was a family seeking refuge against Nepal. The other was a domestic violence survivor alleging a risk in China. Congratulations to our clients and best wishes for their lives in Canada!

08/11/2026

Most immigration practitioners are accustomed to a familiar posture: counsel for the individual argues that the Immigration and Refugee Board has acted unreasonably, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) that defends the tribunal's expertise. The recent Federal Court decision in Singh (2026 FC 1028, per Justice Ngo) presents the inverse — and it raises a question worth every litigator's attention.

The Immigration Division ordered our client's release, not once but twice. An experienced member, having reviewed more than a thousand pages of disclosure and every prior detention review, found the proposed bond persons suitable and addressed the financial questions squarely: the family home would secure the bond, with a further $10,000 posted. The minister sought an emergency stay. Justice Gascon issued an interim order blocking release, and on judicial review Justice Ngo found the member's decision unreasonable.

Here is the nub. The Federal Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly urged restraint in reviewing the decisions of expert tribunals. Reviewing courts are not to reweigh evidence. Yet the standard of review does not change depending on who sits in the applicant's chair. The suitability of a bond person is precisely the kind of fact-intensive, front-line assessment the Immigration Division performs thousands of times a year — and precisely the kind of decision deference doctrine exists to protect.

Two further themes deserve mention. First, salience matters. High-profile matters attract media coverage, and coverage — however inaccurate — can shape the environment in which decisions are made. Second, reliability of source material matters. As Justice Russell observed in Demaria, unverified, unsworn police/intelligence reports are not evidence simply because they bear an official stamp. The lesson of Maher Arar is that untested sources demand caution, not deference.

The matter remains live. Admissibility hearings have concluded, a further risk assessment is pending, and — should the immigration route be exhausted — the Chhina framework leaves the door open to habeas corpus in the superior courts. We will continue to let the record, not the headlines, do the work.

07/24/2026

Firm founder Raj Sharma joined Rishi Renu Nagar in studio at RED FM Calgary yesterday to discuss the situation and the options such as they exist for graduates of the Portage College/CIOT/Campbell campuses.

PGWP Refusals Rising: Why IRCC Is Taking a Tougher ApproachGuest: ...

07/09/2026

When the Immigration Division orders release from detention, the Minister can challenge it in Federal Court. This is a rare occurrence.

However, in a recent case the Minister could not immediately file a proper stay motion because the transcript of the ID hearing was not yet available, making it impossible to properly assess or argue the merits on a full record.

As a result, the Minister brought an urgent request for a short “interim interim” stay — a rare procedural step designed to maintain the status quo (continued detention) for a brief period while both sides prepare complete materials for a full stay motion.

Justice Angus Grant granted the request on an expedited basis but did so with clear reluctance. He described the serious issue as “somewhat of a stretch,” applied the stay test only on a preliminary basis, and found that the balance of convenience “tilts, barely” in the Minister’s favour. Importantly, he expressly noted that the Respondent’s liberty is at stake and stated he was “far from certain” the Minister would prevail once a complete record is before the Court.

The interim stay is short — in effect only until July 17, 2026 — when a special sitting has been scheduled to hear the full stay motion on a proper record, including the awaited transcript.

Our team recently advocated in this matter, opposing the interim interim request and despite the result feel confident to carry the day once the full record and transcript are before the Court. In the meantime, detention continues on this very limited, temporary basis.

07/02/2026

Happy Canada Day! Wishing everyone a safe and joyful celebration.

06/25/2026

We’re delighted to share some wonderful news — Jasprit Gill has been called to the Bar of Alberta before the lovely Justice Keelaghan and has officially joined SSH Law as our newest Associate! Jasprit completed her articles with the firm and has quickly become a valued member of our team. Her dedication, professionalism, and client-focused approach have made a strong impression on both her colleagues and the clients she has worked with. Congratulations, Jasprit! We’re very happy to have you with us as you begin this next chapter of your legal career.