The TRP as a Tool to Overcome Non-Compliance

The TRP *can* overcome noncompliance but the TRP is highly discretionary, with officers afforded deference, and in many cases may be a false hope to those seeking to overcome non-compliance (esp where there is another option to regularize status).

The TRP is a discretionary tool that allows an officer to grant temporary authorization to a foreign national who is inadmissible or does not meet IRPA requirements, if the officer deems it “justified in the circumstances.” Recent Federal Court jurisprudence, such as Howlader v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2025 FC 274) and Ogbonna v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2024 FC 1467), has clarified that this provision is remedial in nature, intended to introduce flexibility and humanitarian considerations into immigration administration. It mitigates the rigid application of exclusionary rules on a case-by-case basis, without requiring “unique” or exceptionally high thresholds like “compelling reasons” in every scenario. Instead, the assessment is contextual, evidence-based, and highly discretionary.

One imagines that applications for TRP will increase given the current circumstances. In one recent case (see below), the option -returning to India and applying from there (notwithstanding the fact that it would be highly unlikely for that visa office to overlook the multi-year non-compliance by the applicant) detracted from the request for relief.

In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1520, the Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an IRCC officer’s refusal of an Indian national’s applications for a temporary resident permit (TRP) under IRPA s. 24 and a work permit. Gurvir Singh arrived in Canada in 2020 on a study permit, began studies in summer 2021, but stopped in November 2021. “Believing” he could work full-time until expiry in March 2023, he worked unauthorized as a shipper/packer and truck driver, breaching conditions and overstaying. In May 2023, while still in Canada, he applied for a TRP and work permit based on a job offer as a mushroom harvester. The officer refused; found Singh inadmissible under IRPA s. 41(a) for non-compliance and wasn’t satisfied TRP was justified, as he could return to India to regularize status and provided no evidence of difficulty doing so.

The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable—confused restoration with TRP’s remedial role; failed to engage submissions (e.g., emotional stress from pandemic preventing studies, working to avoid burdening family, job filling Canadian labor gap); reasons inadequate, lacking analysis.

The Court upheld the refusal. TRPs mitigate harsh IRPA application but must be issued cautiously, granting more privileges than other statuses (citing Dhaliwal, 2024 FC 1463; Kaur, 2024 FC 337). Highly discretionary; considerable deference owed. Onus on applicant to show more than inconvenience. Officer considered submissions, noted TRP not justified where alternative (returning home) exists without proven hardship (citing Stanley, 2024 FC 1601; Sun, 2024 FC 944). Reasons were found to be both adequate and dispositive.