You open a copy of your immigration application and see employment you never had, funds you did not report, or a document you did not supply. Or a letter from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada questions information that your consultant assured you was routine.

This is not just a disagreement about service. It can affect the application and, potentially, your status or future eligibility. It may also create a claim against the person responsible. Those two problems need coordinated attention, but they are not resolved through the same process.

Protect the immigration file first

Start by identifying what was actually submitted, when it was submitted and whether IRCC has set a response deadline. A procedural fairness letter, refusal, removal issue or expiring status can require urgent advice. Do not assume that filing a professional complaint pauses any immigration deadline.

Obtain the complete file: submitted forms, uploaded documents, representative forms, confirmations, correspondence and the material you originally provided. Compare the final application with the information you supplied and any version you reviewed or signed. Preserve the original records; do not alter them to make them consistent after the fact.

If the representative's conduct is the concern, independent advice is particularly important. The person whose work is being questioned may have a conflict when advising how to respond or what explanation to give.

Why “my consultant did it” is not a complete answer

Section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act addresses direct or indirect misrepresentation or withholding of material facts that causes, or could cause, an error in administering the Act. A finding under that provision can carry five years of inadmissibility, with the starting point governed by the statute.

The fact that a representative completed an application does not automatically remove the applicant's exposure. IRCC's guidance specifically warns that applicants remain responsible for their application information. The nature of the error, its materiality, the applicant's knowledge, the evidence and the particular legal process all matter.

This does not mean every discrepancy results in a misrepresentation finding. A spelling error is not necessarily equivalent to an invented employment history. Nor should a person assume that nothing can be done because IRCC has raised a concern. The response needs to address the actual allegation and the available evidence rather than rely on a generic explanation.

Correcting the record requires care and honesty

If information is wrong, do not repeat it in a new application or create documents to support it. Promptly obtain advice about the truthful and procedurally appropriate way to address the record, including any response to a fairness letter or change of representative.

A correction does not automatically erase what was previously submitted or guarantee approval. Equally, delaying until a consultant agrees to refund the fee may make the immigration problem harder to manage. Preserve messages in which you challenged the information, asked for corrections or were told not to worry.

Before signing a statement prepared by someone else, make sure you understand it and that it accurately distinguishes what you knew, what you supplied and what the representative did. Do not guess at dates or adopt explanations you cannot verify.

Is there a BC claim against the consultant?

A civil assessment asks more than whether an application contained a mistake. It considers the representative's obligations, what they did or failed to do, whether that conduct breached the contract or applicable professional standard, and what loss it caused.

For example, a consultant who received an accurate employment history but knowingly substituted invented work experience presents a different factual problem from a consultant who misunderstood an ambiguous record. Both may require investigation, but a fraud allegation has specific elements and should not be used simply as a stronger-sounding name for negligence.

The identity of the professional also matters. A person described in conversation as an “immigration lawyer” may actually be a licensed consultant, an employee, an overseas agent or an unauthorized representative. Check the service agreement and the appropriate professional register. The regulatory route and potential defendants depend on the facts, not the marketing title.

What losses might be considered?

Potential losses could include fees paid for defective or unperformed work and reasonable additional expenses incurred in dealing with the resulting problem. Larger claims—such as lost earnings or a lost immigration opportunity—require careful evidence about causation, legal entitlement, uncertainty and what would probably have happened without the misconduct.

A refusal is not proof that every later financial difficulty was caused by the consultant. The underlying application may have faced independent eligibility issues. Conversely, the existence of another issue does not mean the consultant's conduct is irrelevant. A sound assessment compares the actual outcome with the position supported by the evidence in the absence of the alleged breach.

Keep a clear record of remedial steps and expenses. Steps taken reasonably to protect your position can matter to both the immigration file and the civil claim. Insurance coverage and the defendant's ability to pay also affect the practical value of litigation.

Complaints, compensation and civil proceedings

A complaint to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants concerns a licensed consultant's professional conduct. Complaints about lawyers go to the appropriate law society. IRCC also identifies channels for reporting representative misconduct or suspected fraud affecting an application.

The new consultant compensation regulations address certain losses resulting from defined dishonest acts, but they are not a replacement for immigration remedies or every civil claim. Eligibility and the relationship between any refund, insurance recovery, fund payment and settlement need to be considered together.

Many BC civil claims have a basic two-year limitation period from discovery, subject to exceptions. Do not wait for the immigration case or disciplinary process to finish before asking when your civil deadline runs.

The takeaway

Treat false information in an immigration application as two connected issues: protect the immigration position promptly, and preserve the evidence needed to assess responsibility and financial loss. A complaint alone does not do both jobs.

Sinclair Centre Law LLP can assess a potential BC negligence or fraud claim involving an immigration representative and identify related deadlines requiring attention. Contact our Vancouver office at 604-210-2009 with the relevant government correspondence, service agreement and application records.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Immigration consequences and civil remedies depend on the facts and the applicable process.

References