On December 4, 2024 The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in Dorinela Pepa v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a critical case addressing statutory appeal rights under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). At the center of the case is the question of whether the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) reasonably denied an appeal, given alleged flaws in statutory interpretation and procedural fairness, and the proper standard of review to be applied in such cases.
The case is seen as a test of the limits of administrative discretion and procedural fairness in Canadian immigration law, with wide-ranging implications for individuals affected by changes in circumstances post-visa issuance and for the consistency of administrative decisions.
The appellant, Dorinela Pepa, is challenging the IAD’s decision to dismiss her appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to address post-visa developments, including procedural delays and new adverse circumstances. Counsel for Pepa, represented by Mary Lam, Lorne Waldman, and Steven Blakey, framed the issue as one of fairness and statutory interpretation, while the Minister argued that expanding appeal rights would undermine administrative efficiency and lead to unpredictable outcomes.
One of the pivotal questions in this case is the appropriate standard of review for the IAD’s decision: reasonableness or correctness.