Lawyer Zeynab Ziaie Moayyed is witnessing the adverse effects of escalating delays at the Federal Court on her clients who are seeking to challenge unfavorable immigration rulings. Clients are bracing themselves for waits exceeding a year, a period significant enough to jeopardize their academic progress or immigration status, plunging them into uncertainty. Moayyed emphasized the considerable human toll these delays impose during a recent discussion.
The mounting delays stem from the growing number of individuals requesting a judicial review of immigration officer decisions, a trend expected to reach unprecedented levels this year. In 2024, the average processing time for an immigration case was 14 to 18 months, a stark contrast to the earlier norm of six to eight months before the surge in filings, as highlighted by Moayyed.
The surge in immigration filings has sparked concerns for the chief justice of the Federal Court, Paul Crampton, who foresees it evolving into an access to justice dilemma. Chief Justice Crampton described the surge in immigration workload as extraordinary and exceptional in a September interview from his Ottawa office. The Federal Court presides over various cases falling under federal law, spanning national security, Indigenous affairs, maritime law, patent and copyright matters, and immigration cases such as refugee claims and visa denials.
Before the pandemic, the Federal Court received an average of 6,000 applications annually for immigration-related cases. However, this number began to escalate in 2022, skyrocketing to over 24,000 in 2024, with non-refugee cases surging more than fourfold. From January to August of this year, the court recorded 18,887 new filings, and court administration projects anticipate receiving between 31,000 and 33,000 immigration cases by year-end.
Chief Justice Crampton underscored the challenging funding situation faced by the Federal Court, noting that increased decision-making by immigration officers directly correlates to a heightened workload for the court. Despite the mounting pressure, the court lacks adequate resources to effectively address the rising caseload. The Courts Administration Service (CAS) manages funding and support services for several courts, including the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, and the Tax Court of Canada. While the CAS received $208.7 million in funding for 2025-2026, it emphasized the critical need for additional resources to combat the emerging crisis affecting immigration cases.
Efforts are underway to streamline court operations, with the Federal Court recently implementing changes to expedite certain types of immigration hearings and restrict the length of filed documents. These adjustments apply to hearings related to study permits, work permits, and temporary resident visas, aiming to enable the 56 Federal Court judges to handle a higher caseload per week. Chief Justice Crampton warned of potential future measures should delays persist due to resource constraints.
Immigration lawyers have raised concerns about errors in decisions made by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers, prompting individuals to seek judicial review. These concerns include allegations of errors and inadequate file reviews by officers, linked to the use of processing technology by IRCC to hasten decision-making. The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) has advocated for alternative complaint resolution methods outside the court system in response to these issues.
In a bid to address transparency concerns, IRCC began including officer decision notes in refusal letters in July, yet some professionals cited the notes as lacking detail, with boilerplate grounds for refusal remaining prevalent. While the Federal Court evaluates the reasonableness of officer decisions, immigration lawyer Mario Bellissimo criticized the generic and concise communication of these decisions, which can lead applicants to feel unfairly treated and fuel litigation.
As Chief Justice Crampton approaches retirement, he emphasized the importance of adequate court funding to uphold the rule of law and democracy, stressing the pivotal role of courts in providing fair and timely resolutions. He warned that without sufficient resources, the justice system’s integrity could be compromised, ultimately jeopardizing democracy.