Case Insight: "Red Flags" and "Startlingly Poor Representation" in Maan v. Canada (2025 FC 1805)
A recent Federal Court decision, Maan v. Canada, provides a powerful two-part lesson for both immigration applicants and legal counsel. The case not only reinforces how "red flags" can doom a spousal sponsorship, but it also contains a rare and dramatic judicial sanction against an applicant's lawyer.
Part 1: The Sponsorship Refusal – The "Red Flag"
The case involved an inland spousal sponsorship application. The applicant, Mr. Maan, submitted significant evidence, including a marriage certificate, photos, and financial documents, to prove his relationship was genuine.
However, the application was derailed by "red flags" discovered by the IRCC officer.
The Investigation: The officer called the landlord of the address where the couple claimed to live. The landlord stated he "did not believe any 'females' were living there."
Conflicting Statements: The officer also spoke to a roommate, who initially said Mr. Maan had moved out a year prior.
These conflicting statements triggered a three-hour interview where the officer identified "numerous inconsistencies" in the couple's answers. The application was refused on the basis that the marriage was not genuine.
On judicial review, the Federal Court upheld the refusal. Justice Grant noted that while he "may well have concluded that the couple were in a genuine relationship," his job was not to reweigh the evidence. The officer's concerns, sparked by the "red flags," were reasonable, and therefore the decision stood.
Part 2: The Cautionary Tale – "Startlingly Poor Representation"
The second half of this decision is what makes it a must-read for the legal profession.
The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Rajvinder Singh Grewal, had already adjourned the hearing once. On the rescheduled hearing date, he failed to appear.
Instead, he sent an articling student at the last minute to request another adjournment, citing a "dental procedure."
Justice Grant was unequivocal in his response, calling this a failure to meet the "most basic and fundamental responsibility a lawyer has" and labeling it "startlingly poor representation."
In immigration files, costs are not typically awarded. However, citing "special reasons," the Court ordered Mr. Grewal to personally pay $1,500 in costs for wasting the Court's and the Respondent's time and, most importantly, for failing his client.
Key Takeaways from Maan v. Canada
For Applicants: "Red flags" can be fatal. The evidence of third parties, like a landlord or roommate, carries immense weight. Ensure that your cohabitation evidence is solid and that the people around you are aware of your living situation.
For Counsel: This decision is a stark reminder that professionalism is non-negotiable. The Court has the power to hold counsel personally accountable for conduct that wastes its time and fails to serve a client's interests.
