Pepa v. Canada: Appeal Rights for Permanent Resident Visas

Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21, stands as a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision. The central character, Pepa, faced removal proceedings after her permanent resident visa expired before her admissibility hearing. Nonetheless, she originally entered Canada with a valid permanent resident visa. The key question before the Court was whether Pepa’s right to appeal survived the expiry of her visa by the time of the removal order. The Supreme Court concluded that appeal rights depend on holding a valid permanent resident visa at the time of entry, not at later stages. This ruling protects many future applicants facing similar facts, as it firmly clarifies the right of appeal for those who enter Canada with a valid permanent resident visa.

Summary of the Decision

Pepa’s experience reveals a recurring issue in Canadian immigration. She received a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependent of her father. A few weeks before leaving Albania, Pepa secretly married, not telling her father or the Canadian authorities. Upon arrival in Canada, she truthfully declared her new marriage to the immigration officer at the port of entry. Because she had married, she no longer qualified as a dependent child under immigration rules.

The officer allowed her to enter Canada for further examination but did not grant her permanent residency. This led to a section 44 report for failing to notify the visa office of her marriage and, later, a misrepresentation report for withholding this change until her arrival. By the time her admissibility hearing started, her visa had expired. The Immigration Division (ID) found her inadmissible due to misrepresentation and issued a removal order (a five-year exclusion order). Pepa tried to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), but the IAD found it lacked jurisdiction because her visa had expired by the time of the removal order. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the IAD. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the visa expiry occurred before the hearing or if the order blocked her right to appeal under section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Court held that anyone who entered with a valid permanent resident visa could appeal, regardless of whether the visa expired later. This decision supports a fair and logical reading of the law

The Issues

The case presented the Supreme Court with two main legal issues. First, the Court had to decide exactly when a foreign national must hold a permanent resident visa to preserve the right of appeal under section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Is it at the moment of entry, at the time of the removal order, or the appeal hearing? Second, the Court considered whether the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) correctly determined its jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court asked if the IAD’s refusal to hear Pepa’s appeal followed the law or misapplied section 63(2).

The Most Notable Paragraph

The Supreme Court’s reasoning turns on a crucial passage:

“The only reasonable interpretation of s. 63(2) is that the validity of the permanent resident visa, for an appeal under s. 63(2), is assessed at the time of arrival in Canada.”

This single sentence brings much-needed clarity. By fixing the relevant date at entry, the Court shields individuals from losing their appeal rights because of delays or administrative decisions outside their control. The importance of this passage lies in its direct and practical impact. Now, foreign nationals know the exact moment when their status determines their appeal rights.

The Decision and Why

The Supreme Court delivered three sets of reasons in Pepa v. Canada (2025 SCC 21). Justice Martin, writing for the majority and joined by Wagner C.J., and Karakatsanis, Kasirer, Jamal, and Moreau JJ., found that the only reasonable interpretation of section 63(2) is that the permanent resident visa must be valid at the time of arrival in Canada, not at the time of the removal order. The majority set aside the decisions of the IAD, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal, and remitted the matter to the IAD for a hearing on the merits.

Justice Rowe dissented in part, agreeing that the IAD’s decision was unreasonable but disagreeing with the majority’s approach to remedy. He would have remitted the matter to the IAD for redetermination with guidance from the Court, rather than declaring a single reasonable interpretation.

Justices Côté and O’Bonsawin wrote a separate dissent, holding that the IAD’s interpretation, requiring a valid visa at the time of the removal order, was reasonable and consistent with the statute. They would have dismissed the appeal. The result is a majority decision in favour of Pepa, but with two distinct dissents highlighting limits on judicial review and alternative readings of section 63(2).

Future Citations of This Court Decision

The impact of Pepa v. Canada (2025 SCC 21) has already spread to later cases, where courts and tribunals have cited the standard it established. Here are the court cases that cited this case so far:

Eshun v. Canada, 2025 FC 1211

In Eshun v. Canada, the Federal Court considered the standard of review applicable to a procedural fairness challenge in the immigration context. The court referenced Pepa v. Canada to reinforce the need for reviewing courts to examine not just the presence of reasons, but their responsiveness to the stakes for the individual involved. The judge cited Pepa for the principle that when a tribunal’s decision significantly affects individual rights, the reasons must show engagement with those stakes and be grounded in both fact and law. The court ultimately found the tribunal’s reasons lacking, relying on the framework set out in Pepa to justify remitting the matter for reconsideration.

Sarah-Claude Inc. c. Drainville, 2025 QCCS 2376

This Quebec Superior Court case involved a judicial review of a ministerial decision suspending a vocational training program. The court cited Pepa v. Canada when discussing the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the requirement that decision-makers must interpret legislative provisions with an awareness of text, context, and purpose. The court quoted the Pepa decision to highlight that, when a statute’s meaning is in dispute, the tribunal or administrative decision-maker must demonstrate in its reasons that it is attentive to the principles of modern statutory interpretation. Ultimately, the court applied these principles and found the Minister’s decision to be reasonable, emphasizing the interpretive discipline urged in Pepa.

Sahloul v. Canada, 2025 FC 1331

In Sahloul v. Canada, the Federal Court addressed the adequacy of an immigration officer’s reasons for refusing refugee protection. The court relied on Pepa v. Canada for the proposition that the more serious the impact on an individual, the greater the duty for decision-makers to provide reasons that engage with the stakes. The judge cited Pepa at paragraphs 115–117 to explain that, especially where the consequences for the claimant are severe, reasons must be more than conclusory. The court found the officer’s reasons wanting, echoing Pepa’s call for transparent, intelligible, and justified decision-making in high-stakes immigration matters.

Zahrebelnyi v. Canada, 2025 FC 1338

Zahrebelnyi v. Canada involved statutory interpretation of the “subversion” provision under section 34(1)(b.1) of the IRPA. The court referred to Pepa as authority for the proper approach to reasonableness review in statutory interpretation: when a tribunal’s reasons do not demonstrate engagement with the text, context, and purpose of a disputed provision, the reviewing court must conduct its analysis to assess the reasonableness of the outcome. The judge highlighted that Pepa confirmed analytical omissions are not always fatal if the tribunal’s interpretive outcome is reasonable in light of statutory principles. Here, the court followed Pepa by conducting its statutory interpretation analysis and upheld the reasonableness of the officer’s decision.

Lessons Learned from This Decision

Pepa v. Canada teaches several lessons for legal professionals and those navigating the immigration system. Below are the key takeaways:

• The right of appeal for foreign nationals under IRPA section 63(2) depends on status at entry, not at later points in the process.
• Administrative or bureaucratic delays cannot lawfully take away a person’s appeal rights. Lawyers should ensure their clients are aware of this key protection.
• Status at entry now has lasting consequences, so immigration representatives should always document this status carefully.
• Decision-makers must interpret the law to avoid arbitrary or illogical outcomes, as the Supreme Court made clear.
• Reviewing the timing of visa expiry is crucial for anyone facing removal orders.

By focusing on these lessons, both practitioners and applicants can better navigate the appeal process and protect their rights.

Booking an Appointment for Consultation or Mentorship

Do you want to understand more about immigration appeals or need help with a complicated case? Book a consultation or mentorship session with the author. The author offers guidance for immigration consultants and members of the public who need support. You will receive up-to-date insights and practical advice tailored to your situation.

Citing All Cases in the Article

Below is a list of all cases cited in this article, using the McGill Uniform Legal Citation style:

• Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kcwlj>, retrieved on 2025-07-31
• Eshun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1211 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kd3j0>, retrieved on 2025-08-01
• Sarah-Claude Inc. c. Drainville, 2025 QCCS 2376 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kd7b0>, retrieved on 2025-08-01
• Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1331 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kdh2w>, retrieved on 2025-08-01
• Zahrebelnyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1338 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kdk09>, retrieved on 2025-08-01