Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has a call center to provide customer service. The information is here:
Telephone: 1-888-242-2100 (in Canada only)
Rely on the call center
In Neither c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)2014 CF 725, the IRCC call center asked the applicant to provide a certain document and argued that this would result in the application being approved. This is exactly what the applicant did and his request was refused. Justice Brown wrote:
…the failure of justice in this matter arises solely from the fact that the applicant followed CIC’s instructions. Therefore, between these two parties, the responsibility must lie with the party who directed the erroneous conduct, which in this case is CIC through its call center. The applicant cannot be expected to suffer the loss of her WPPD, the loss of her temporary resident status and her immediate removal from Canada, simply because she followed CIC’s instructions even if they were are found to be incorrect.
Contact the IRCC call center
When the IRCC call center sends an email to someone, it is important that applicants follow their instructions. In a rigorous case, Justice Pentney said it was reasonable for IRCC not to respond to or review information provided by an applicant when emailing the call center instead of submitting a specific inquiry to the case as requested, especially since the IRCC email said “do not respond to this email”.
Finally, I note that the allegation of denial of procedural fairness is based on the allegation that the PA’s legal representative called the respondent’s call center to report the difficulty, and she subsequently received an email describing what what she should do to resolve the problem. The AP says its representative responded to that email but has not received a response. The problem is that the email the PA representative received from the call center clearly stated “Do not respond to this email.” It can hardly be unfair for the defendant to fail to act on any email sent despite this instruction, when the defendant had provided clear instructions on how to deal with the matter via an online form. The record also shows that in early January 2018, Respondent sent an additional response to the AP representative, with instructions on how to resolve the problem with the online portal and an explanation of the steps she should take if that didn’t solve the problem. issue.
Statistics
