‘Unprecedented’ increase in immigration cases creates unmanageable workloads for Federal Court, says chief justice

Immigration cases, and thus IRCC, have for a long time been the largest number of federal court cases. IRCC has long felt that the extensive possibilities to appeal decisions was, if not unmanageable, something that needed reform. The increases flagged here are staggering, reflecting both immigrant and migrant concerns as well as a “legal industry” that has grown commensurately:

A massive increase in immigration cases in the last six years has created unmanageable workloads at the Federal Court, says Chief Justice Alan Diner.

The Federal Court has jurisdiction over a number of immigration matters, such as visa applications, refugee claims, admissibility cases and removals.

Diner, who was sworn in as the top judge for the Federal Court on July 6, said when he joined the court in 2014, it typically saw between 5,000 and 6,000 immigration cases a year.

In 2021, immigration filings quickly began to climb, with 9,700 cases brought before the court that year. Now Diner said the Federal Court is on track to see upwards of 33,000 immigration filings this year alone.

“The judges have the pedal to the metal and are trying to do their utmost,” Diner said.

“They’re working around the clock, working weekends, working vacations, court staff, the same thing, available evenings, available weekends to try and deal with this volume.”

The rapid increase in immigration-related cases coincides with an increase in the number of permanent and temporary immigrants, in addition to asylum seekers, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 14,000 immigration cases were filed between Jan. 1 and June 30, with 28,000 pending. Almost 1,000 cases have been granted hearings for a judicial review….

Source: ‘Unprecedented’ increase in immigration cases creates unmanageable workloads for Federal Court, says chief justice

CBC reverses restriction on labelling 9/11 as ‘terrorism’

Really wonder what CBC is thinking. Miller’s comment nails it:

…The move was welcomed by Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller, who stated on social media that the earlier policy was “a piece of pedantic and foolish guidance that caused legitimate anger.”

Boshra’s post came within an hour after Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree reiterated the federal government’s view that 9/11 was the “deadliest terrorist attack in history.”

Anger about the CBC policy had exploded online ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, and as relations plummet between Canada and the U.S. after trade talks fell apart last week.

In a written statement Friday afternoon, Anandasangaree did not mention the CBC policy, but stressed that the Canadian government has “always recognized 9/11 as the deadliest terrorist attack in history” and passed a law in 2001 to create a legal definition of “terrorist activity.”

He noted that Canadians “stood with our American neighbours” after the attack, including by hosting thousands of stranded air passengers in Gander, N.L., and joining the war in Afghanistan, where 158 Canadian soldiers died. …

Source: CBC reverses restriction on labelling 9/11 as ‘terrorism’

Canada’s online citizenship test – A troubling rise in pass rates: Andrew Griffith for Inside Policy

My latest analysis of citizenship test pass rates and government changes to make it easier for applicants to pass:

The citizenship test is not simply another administrative hurdle. It’s meant to establish that applicants understand the country they are joining, and is an important part of the journey to becoming Canadian.

Becoming a Canadian citizen is more than completing a series of forms, tests, and administrative requirements. It is a moment of shared accomplishment and belonging — one that is diminished when the journey to citizenship increasingly happens alone, behind a screen.

In its quest to reduce costs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has increasingly shifted to online citizenship delivery, whether through online applications, citizenship ceremonies, online knowledge testing, and the proposed (but not yet implemented) online self-affirmation of the citizenship oath. In doing so, Canada risks losing something less tangible but no less important: the shared civic experience that turns legal status into a sense of belonging.

But online testing has brought another, more immediately troubling change: pass rates have risen sharply across most countries, raising questions about the integrity of the testing process…..

Source: Canada’s online citizenship test – A troubling rise in pass rates: Andrew Griffith for Inside Policy

Robert Brym: Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitic

Agree:

…All these findings are in line with results from a 2024 survey of 414 Canadian Jews and a 2018 survey of 2,335 Canadian who identify as Jewish by religion or ethnicity.

Members of the JFN are therefore wrong to claim that being Jewish is only a matter of religion and not a matter of statehood. Moreover, just as it is antisemitic to discriminate against Jews based on their religion, I believe it is antisemitic to erase support for the existence of a Jewish state as a core part of Jewish identify.

Some Jews are anti-Zionists. They deny the need for the existence of a Jewish state. In Canada, a 2025 survey of 332 Jewish Canadians found that one per cent of Canadian Jews at the time regarded themselves as anti-Zionists, while the most recent 2026 survey of 625 Canadian Jews cited earlier puts the number at five per cent. The proportion of Jews who deny the need for Jewish statehood is thus tiny….

It should not surprise us that the JFN has written an op-ed arguing that anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism. In the principles section of their website, they state that they oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism which was accepted by Canada in 2019. It includes non-legally binding illustrative examples of what might constitute antisemitism, including, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”

Notably, the JFN’s “principles” page on their website lacks any mention of the horrific attacks on October 7, and their press release page includes only two entries, one opposing the IHRA definition and one about “anti-Palestinian racism.”

Many Jewish Zionists, including me, are highly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its conduct in the Israel-Hamas war. However, for reasons I’ve indicated, I regard the small coterie of Jewish anti-Zionists as misguided.”

Robert Brym is an emeritus professor of sociology and Jewish studies at University of Toronto.

Source: Robert Brym: Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitic

Trump administration moves to increase H-1B visa fee to more than $100,000

Of note, more shooting themselves in the foot given their importance to the tech sector:

President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday released a proposed regulation to codify an unprecedented more than US$100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers that Trump first imposed last year but has been blocked by the courts. 

The fee first imposed by Trump in a temporary proclamation last year vastly raises the cost of the visas that are heavily relied on in the tech, education and research sectors. 

A federal judge in June ruled that the fee was illegal and blocked the Trump administration from collecting it. A Boston-based appeals court is reviewing that decision while a different court considers whether a judge in Washington, D.C., properly rejected a challenge to the fee by a major business group.

Trump’s 2025 proclamation imposing the fee expires in September, one year after it was issued, but directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to adopt regulations making it permanent. 

The proposed US$103,265 fee by DHS, posted online in the Federal Register on Monday to be formally published on Tuesday, kicks off a 30-day public comment period. …

Source: Trump administration moves to increase H-1B visa fee to more than $100,000

ICYMI – Barutciski: The UNHCR is goading the U.S. into pulling its funding – and putting itself in existential risk

Of note:

Will be interesting to hear comments from refugee advocates on this suggestion:

…To avert a crippling U.S. funding freeze or a complete American withdrawalfrom the UNHCR executive committee, the agency must prove it can be reformed, and member states must broker a compromise. Canada can play a constructive role in finding a face-saving solution that maintains U.S. engagement. With the committee holding its annual general session in October, Canada – an influential member of UNHCR’s executive committee, as the sixth-largest donor in 2025 – has an opportunity to bring its middle-power strategy to life with a bold initiative to save one of the UN’s largest operational programs. 

The best way to prove UNHCR is reformable would be to split the deputy position into two distinct roles: one to oversee humanitarian operations and field execution, which Mr. Salih’s current choice could retain, and the other dedicated strictly to resource management and budgeting, which would go to Mr. Trump’s nominee. This would satisfy Washington’s oversight and audit concerns, and mirror structures already used in other UN bodies like UNICEF and the UN Population Fund. 

Rather than thumbing their noses at the White House, other major members of the executive committee should also admit they share American concerns about a misguided asylum system that is fuelling uncontrolled mass migration. This reality was highlighted in the recent Chisinau declaration, where all 46 members of the Council of Europe – including staunchly progressive Western European nations – agreed that the current asylum system must be reined in to be saved. This non-binding political text explores the self-inflicted dilemmas resulting from overly generous judicial decisions, implicitly acknowledging the Trump administration’s migration-related criticisms of Europe and indicating that Washington’s stance is far from isolated. U.S. pressure has already pushed Ottawa to tighten border controls and amend its asylum procedures. …

Source: The UNHCR is goading the U.S. into pulling its funding – and putting itself in existential risk

ICYMI: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Demonstrates the need for moderation…:

In June 30 submission to National Post, Sharaf Sharafeldin, president of strategy at the Muslim Association of Canada, stated that during the three-day conference that attracted thousands of Muslim-Canadians, speakers and attendees examined “faith-rooted life” in Canada. The incident involving the “jew-free” phrase occurred during a youth session and was “a public, anonymous audience-participation exercise” that produced a word cloud image, when asked what kind of community they wanted. It has since been widely circulated.

There were 50 entries visible in the word cloud, wrote Sharafeldin. But the facilitator did not notice the “jew-free” entry.

The August 12 update follows an “internal investigation” into the incident.

“MAC regrets that this phrase appeared at our Convention, even briefly and even though it originated from an anonymous, bad-faith submission with no connection to the youth or the discussion taking place in the session.” The organization did not explain what it meant by bad faith….

Source: Muslim Association promises ‘Jew-free’ incident will not recur at future youth events

Karas: Canada’s deportation backlog is real. The solution is competent enforcement 

Hard not to argue with the release of more detailed data on removals and greater oversight:

…First, dedicate a defined portion of the 1,000 new CBSA officers being recruited over three years to inland enforcement, warrant review, travel-document work, and removals case management. More officers at ports of entry will not by themselves resolve inland files. Resources should follow regional workload and case complexity, not headline-driven national quotas.

Second, assign every enforceable case a responsible officer, a next-action date, and an automatic escalation when a file becomes inactive. CBSA and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada must also finish integrating their case-management information so that court decisions, risk assessments and changes in status move between agencies without delay. Better technology will not remove anyone by itself, but it can prevent thousands of files from disappearing into administrative limbo.

Third, use detention and monitoring proportionately. Detention should remain a last resort, particularly for vulnerable and low-risk individuals. But credible flight risks and serious criminal or security cases require close supervision. For cooperative, lower-risk cases, reporting requirements and alternatives to detention can preserve compliance without the expense and human cost of unnecessary detention.

Fourth, make voluntary departure the default for suitable low-risk cases. Most removals are already unescorted, and CBSA has a dedicated telephone line for people subject to removal orders. A carefully limited return-assistance program could free enforcement officers for fugitives and complex cases—but only if independently evaluated. Canada’s earlier pilot achieved 3,950 removals against a projected 6,955 and became less cost-effective as participation declined. That record argues for disciplined experimentation, not another open-ended program.

Finally, use diplomacy more aggressively where foreign governments delay travel documents. Canada has previously developed country-specific removal and repatriation plans with Global Affairs Canada. Those plans should include clear timelines, senior-level escalation, and public reporting on persistent non-cooperation, while respecting Canada’s international protection obligations.

Parliament has now required monthly reporting on removals, unenforced orders, and the reasons for delay. That transparency should be used to publish outcomes by risk category, inventory age, and impediment—not merely the largest possible removal total. Raw numbers can reward easy administrative closures while difficult public-safety cases remain unresolved.

A credible immigration system must be fair at the front end and final at the back end. Canada should never remove someone before the law permits it. But when every legitimate avenue has been exhausted, a removal order must mean something. The answer is neither mass detention nor empty promises. It is competent case management, risk-based enforcement, international cooperation, and transparent accountability.

source: OP-ED: Canada’s deportation backlog is real. The solution is competent enforcement

Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Of note:

The federal public service is facing calls to combat antisemitism after Jewish civil servants reported experiencing disproportionately high levels of discrimination in the workplace.

In 2024, the annual federal employee survey tracked responses based on religion for the first time. A breakdown of the responses found that 18 per cent of Jewish civil servants reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including offensive remarks.

Some Jewish community leaders say the survey confirms anecdotal reports they’ve heard about rising antisemitism within the public service. 

Across the federal civil service, 9 per cent of employees who responded to the survey said they had experienced discrimination in the workplace in the preceding 12 months, with 11 per cent reporting they had faced harassment.

Thirteen per cent of Muslim public servants said they had experienced discrimination in the year preceding the survey, with 12 per cent reporting they had experienced harassment. 

Only half of civil servants responded to the survey, including approximately 67,820 Christians, 6,550 Muslims, 3,130 Hindus, 1,830 Sikhs and 1,500 Jews.

Fourteen per cent of Sikh public servants who responded said they had experienced harassment, with 13 per cent saying they had suffered discrimination, including on the basis of their race. …

Source: Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Trump’s plan to revoke visas of 200,000 asylum seekers should fuel action by Ottawa, experts say

Likely there is some planning going on but not necessarily in the direction immigration and refugee advocates would prefer until court case plays out:

Immigration experts say Canada should prepare itself for the arrival of asylum seekers at the border after the Trump administration indicated it is preparing a mass cancellation of visas issued over the past decade. 

This week, Washington signalled plans to revoke the tourist and business visasof up to 200,000 foreign nationals who have applied for or are actively seeking asylum in the United States. The move is expected to prompt legal challenges, but if it goes ahead it would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history.

Some immigration lawyers and academics researching migration in Canada are urging Ottawa to consider allowing those who face having their visas cancelled to enter Canada on a discretionary basis. 

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S., foreign nationals who have already claimed asylum in the United States are turned away at Canada’s border, with a few exceptions, including for those who have family in Canada.

But experts say the Trump administration has undermined the premise of the responsibility-sharing agreement between the two countries by eroding the rights of asylum seekers in the U.S. This latest plan to cancel visas issued between 2016 and 2026 further undermines the pact, they told The Globe and Mail, which is premised on asylum seekers being treated fairly in the United States…. 

Source: Trump’s plan to revoke visas of 200,000 asylum seekers should fuel action by Ottawa, experts say