The Federal Court’s view of competence and procedural fairness

Maya, a newly licensed immigration consultant, proudly opened her practice in a small town in Alberta. She had dreams of helping clients find new beginnings in Canada. However, after advising a client to apply under an outdated immigration stream, she faced an angry email from the client, questioning the correctness of her advice. That was her wake-up call. Maya realized that competence wasn’t just about passing the EPE—it was about staying current, making sound decisions, and ensuring procedural fairness. Her story is not unique.

Understanding competence in the code of conduct

The CICC Code of Professional Conduct dedicates sections 19 to 21 to competence, emphasizing its central role in ethical and effective representation.

Key expectations under the code

To practise competently, consultants must:

• Understand the IRPA, the Citizenship Act, and all related programs and policies.
• Have strong oral and written communication skills.
• Identify and argue the key points in a case effectively.
• Meet any provincial competency requirements.
• Provide services in either English or French.
• Use appropriate technology.
• Stay current with the College’s regulations, bylaws, and guidelines.

When not competent

If a licensee is not competent in a given matter, the Code under section 20 mandates two options:

• Decline to act.
• Obtain assistance from another competent professional, with written disclosure to the client.

Maintaining competence, as outlined in section 21, is not a one-time achievement but a continuous responsibility.

Federal Court on competence: recent decisions

Two recent Federal Court decisions—El Khatib v. Canada and Babetian v. Canada—offer powerful insights into how the courts view competence, especially when it intersects with procedural fairness.

El Khatib v. Canada, 2025 FC 49

In this case, the applicants claimed asylum, citing fear from the wife’s Druze family and the husband’s risk of imprisonment for defection. However, their former consultant failed to raise the husband’s risk on the refugee appeal and focused instead on irrelevant points.

Justice Turley ruled that:

• The consultant failed to challenge key RPD findings.
• The advice not to raise the husband’s fear of imprisonment was incompetent.
• The appeal was effectively lost due to poor advocacy.

The court found that the consultant’s performance denied the clients a fair process, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Notably, the decision emphasized that consultants are held to the same competence standards as lawyers.

Babetian v. Canada, 2025 FC 612

In this case, the consultant advised the applicant to submit a work permit under the LMIA owner/operator stream, which had been eliminated over a year before the application.

Justice Battista ruled that:

• The advice was clearly negligent.
• However, the misrepresentation finding would not have occurred but for the consultant’s conduct.
• The right to be heard was compromised because the application was built on faulty advice.

Again, the court quashed the refusal and emphasized how consultant negligence can undermine fairness and produce irreversible harm.

These two decisions align closely with Singh v. Canada (2024 FC 576). In that decision, the Federal Court quashed the officer’s refusal due to the representative’s mistakes. The Court found that the consultant failed to properly assess immigration history, leading to misrepresentation and a five-year ban. This highlights a consistent judicial expectation of competence and diligence from licensed consultants.

Key lessons for regulated Canadian immigration consultants

The Federal Court decisions align closely with sections 19 to 21 of the Code. Here are essential takeaways.

• Know your scope: Do not take files outside your licence class or area of competence. Refer or collaborate as required.
• Keep learning: Both 2025 court cases involved outdated knowledge. Stay current with program changes, policy updates, and practice directions.
• Document your strategy: If you choose not to raise a legal argument, document why. Courts may not accept vague claims of ‘strategy’ if a client’s case fails.
• Explain and advise clearly: Give your clients realistic advice based on current law. Ensure they understand the risks and options.
• Maintain communication records: Courts will look at communication records if clients allege incompetence. Detailed notes help demonstrate sound judgment.
• Embrace accountability: Do not fear feedback, complaints, or peer review. Use them as tools to refine your competence and better serve clients.

Conclusion: Build trust through competence

Consultants are more than paper-pushers. They are advocates, educators, and guides. Competence isn’t a box to check; it is the foundation of your professional credibility. The Federal Court has made it clear: incompetence, especially when it affects procedural fairness, can derail a case. Let the court cases I shared remind you to stay vigilant, current, and ethical.

Book a one-on-one mentorship with me today to explore strategies for maintaining competence or to discuss a challenging case.

List of Court Cases

• El Khatib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 49 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k8pcf>, retrieved on 2025-04-06
• Babetian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 612 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kbcn8>, retrieved on 2025-04-06
• Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 576 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k46nv>, retrieved on 2025-04-07