What happens when IRCC changes the rules after someone has already made major life decisions? Or even submitted their application?
We start with recent Post-Graduation Work Permit refusals involving graduates of non-credit programs. Students enrolled in programs that had previously resulted in PGWPs, only for IRCC’s website to be updated in June 2026 to state that non-credit programs, other than flight-school programs, are not eligible. We discuss whether such a change can fairly be applied to people who completed their studies and applied before the website changed, and the broader legal principle against retrospective decision-making.
We then look at a similarly confusing issue involving the temporary public policy for Iranian nationals in Canada. IRCC added guidance requiring certain applicants to have continuously remained in Canada, later relaxed that position to permit short absences, yet applicants caught under the earlier interpretation continue to face refusals.
The discussion turns to a broader question: where does immigration law actually reside when ministerial public policies, program-delivery instructions, internal guidance and applicant-facing webpages do not necessarily say the same thing? We discuss “soft law,” the rule of law, the legal effect of IRCC guidelines, and the problems created when government webpages can change without a clear record of what they previously said.
We also answer viewer questions about:
• Whether the Super Visa program could be cancelled
• The pause in the Parents and Grandparents Program
• Why classmates can receive different PGWP decisions despite apparently identical circumstances
• Comprehensive security screening delays
• Recent Federal Court decisions on mandamus and security screening
• Why internationally trained doctors struggle to become licensed in Canada
","author_name":"Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff"}