IRCC Website Checklists Don't Override the Law, Federal Court Rules in Express Entry Case

For anyone who has navigated the Canadian immigration system, the moment of clicking "submit" on a permanent residence application is filled with both hope and anxiety. Applicants spend months, sometimes years, gathering documents, fearing that a single missing form or unchecked box could lead to a summary rejection. This exact nightmare scenario befell one applicant, but his challenge in court has resulted in a significant decision that clarifies a critical principle: IRCC's website checklists do not override Canadian law.

In a September 2025 decision, the Federal Court ruled that it was "unreasonable" for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to reject an Express Entry application simply because it was missing a birth certificate for a non-accompanying dependent.

This case is more than just a single victory for an applicant. It serves as a powerful lesson for all current and future applicants on the hierarchy of authority in Canadian immigration and provides a crucial warning about the pitfalls of IRCC's automated "completeness checks."

The Case: A Rejection Over a "Missing" Document

The applicant had been living and working in Canada for three years on a closed work permit. In late 2023, he was invited to apply for permanent residence under the Express Entry class and submitted his application the following month.

He applied for himself only, but as required, he provided all the requested information for his spouse and three children, listing them as "non-accompanying dependents". In a proactive cover letter, he explained that he planned to sponsor them later and explicitly asked IRCC to contact him if any additional information was needed, stating he was "more than willing to provide any requested documents promptly".

Despite this, in April 2024, he received a rejection letter. His application wasn't refused after an assessment; it was rejected at the first hurdle. The reason? The application was deemed "incomplete" because it "did not include... Copy of birth certificate for dependent(s)," noting a birth certificate for one dependent "was not provided". A note in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) confirmed this rationale: "APPLICATION REJECTED File does not meet R10 requirements Dep 1 Birth Certificate - NOT Included".

This is the dreaded "R10" rejection, a summary dismissal under section 10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) that forces an applicant back to square one—in this case, needing to create a new Express Entry profile and hope for another invitation. The applicant challenged this decision, arguing it was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Core Dispute: "Information" vs. "Documents"

The entire case hinged on a critical, and seemingly subtle, distinction in the law.

IRCC's lawyers argued that section 10 of the Regulations establishes a mandatory condition that applicants provide birth certificates with their applications. They asserted that an application without this document is incomplete, and therefore an officer must reject it under section 12 of the Regulations.

The Federal Court disagreed completely. The judge found that IRCC's decision was based on a "mistaken conflation of an information requirement with a document requirement".

He broke down the law as follows:

1. Section 10(1)(c) of the Regulations is a general clause stating that an application must "include all information and documents required by these Regulations".

   
   

2. Section 10(2)(a) is the specific clause that details what's required for family members. It states an application must "contain the name, birth date, address, nationality and immigration status of the applicant and of all family members... whether accompanying or not".

The Court noted that this specific section, 10(2)(a), "does not reference documents". It only requires information (or renseignements in French). The applicant had provided all this information.

The judge found IRCC's position "mystifying". He explained that while a birth certificate is evidence an officer might later use to corroborate an applicant's information, the certificate itself "is not information". Since the law (s. 10 and 12) explicitly distinguishes between "information" and "documents," IRCC could not reasonably claim the application was incomplete under section 10 for missing a document that section 10 doesn't actually require.

Because the application did comply with the information requirements of section 10, the judge concluded that section 12 (which requires the return of incomplete applications) "does not apply".

The Big Lesson: Website Checklists Do Not Trump the Law

This is where the case becomes a critical lesson for all applicants. The government's lawyer, unable to point to a specific Regulation requiring the birth certificate for completeness, fell back on another argument: the online instructions and document checklist for Express Entry applicants make this a mandatory item.

The Court firmly rejected this argument, reinforcing a cornerstone legal principle.

"While I agree that it was open to the Minister to demand copies of birth certificates in order to assess eligibility," the judge wrote, "it is well settled that such instructions or guidelines do not have the force of law".

He further stated that these checklists and website guides "cannot be used to narrow access to the Express Entry program beyond what has been set out in the Act and its Regulations".

This is the key takeaway. In the hierarchy of Canadian law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is at the top. Below that are the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), which have the force of law. Far below those are IRCC's internal operational manuals, program guides, and the public-facing website instructions. These guides are meant to help applicants and officers, not create new, legally binding rules.

When an officer—or in this case, a program assistant who likely made the initial R10 assessment—simply follows a checklist without considering the actual law, they are engaging in what is known as "fettering of discretion". They are "chaining" their duty to assess the file to a rigid, internal policy. The Court found that if the rejection was based on the website instructions, it would "amount to impermissible fettering of discretion" and "fall short of even the most basic requirements of transparency and justification".

The court set aside the decision and ordered the application to be returned to a different officer for redetermination, giving the applicant the chance to update his file.

A Warning: What This Means for Your Application

This ruling is excellent news for applicants who may have been unfairly rejected on a similar technicality. It provides a strong legal precedent to challenge such a decision in Federal Court.

However, this decision must not be interpreted as a green light to start submitting applications without all the documents IRCC asks for on its checklist.

Here is a practical warning and guide for applicants moving forward:

1. Do Not Ignore the Checklist: This ruling was a shield used in a legal battle after a rejection. It is not a sword to use when preparing your application. The path of least resistance is always to provide every single document IRCC requests in its guide and checklist. Why? Because even if you pass the R10 completeness check, you still have to pass the eligibility and admissibility assessment. At that later stage, an officer absolutely has the right to request that same birth certificate as evidence to corroborate your claims. If you can't provide it then, your application will be refused—a far more serious outcome.

   
   

2. Understand the "Gatekeeper" Problem: This file was likely rejected by a program assistant (not a senior officer) whose job is to quickly scan for completeness against a checklist. This "gatekeeping" system is designed for speed and often lacks nuance. You are better off pleasing this system than fighting it in court, which is expensive and takes time.

   
   

3. If You Are Missing a Document, Explain It: The best strategy if you genuinely cannot obtain a document listed on the checklist is to follow the other smart, proactive step taken by the applicant in this case: include a detailed Letter of Explanation (LOE). In your LOE, you should:

   
   

   • Clearly state which document is missing.

   • Explain why it is missing (e.g., it's impossible to obtain from your home country, it has been lost, etc.).

   • Provide proof of your attempts to get it (e.g., emails, government receipts).

   • Provide alternative documents (e.g., a sworn affidavit, family book, etc.).

   • Politely cite this case and state that while you are providing all required information per R10(2), you are happy to provide any supplementary evidence the officer requires.

This ruling doesn't change the best strategy for applicants, which is to be as thorough as possible. What it does change is the legal landscape for those who are unreasonably punished by a rigid, checklist-driven system.

This decision is a welcome reminder that IRCC and its officers are accountable to the law, not just their own internal guides. It reinforces that decisions must be "transparent, intelligible and justified" against the Regulations themselves, not just a webpage. For applicants, it underscores the importance of being thorough, but also provides hope that the rule of law can prevail over bureaucratic rigidity.

—o—

About the Author

I’m Ahmet Faruk Ocak, a Canadian immigration lawyer and the founder of Blacksy Immigration Law Firm 🌊. 

At Blacksy, we specialize in providing honest, straightforward, and tailored immigration solutions to individuals and businesses worldwide. Our brand promise is simple: no unnecessary fuss, no false hopes, and no empty promises—just realistic, reliable guidance to help you achieve your immigration goals.

Whether you’re expanding your business to Canada, transferring top talent, or planning your future here, we’re here to guide you with precision, transparency, and care.

Visit us at www.blacksyimmigration.com to learn more or to start your journey.

The articles on this site are general information, not legal advice, and reading them doesn’t create a lawyer-client relationship. Immigration rules change often, so always consult a qualified Canadian immigration lawyer about your specific situation.