Misrepresentation Concerns and the Level of Detail Needed in the PFL
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.