The consequences to a finding of misrepresentation under the IRPA are serious. They include enforcement and potential removal for Permanent Residents and a 5 year ban on entering or applying for status for Foreign Nationals (See s.40(2)(a) of the IRPA). In practical terms, such a finding could end the aspiration to live in Canada or the end of a life built here in Canada.
Counsel should also be aware of the possibility of criminal charges laid under the IRPA for misrepresentation. In R v. Singh 2019 ABPC 37 the accused was charged with “knowingly, directly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could have induced an error in the administration” of the IRPA contrary to section 127(a) of the IRPA. The Court found Mr. Singh guilty of knowingly using false university acceptance documents and other false documents that resulted in the issuance of a study permit. Singh said any misrepresentation was innocent on his part, arguing that he did not know the documents were false and attempted to shift the blame to his immigration representative. Ultimately the trial judge found that Mr. Singh’s application was his responsibility and he was “accountable for the lies contained therein.”
 In his testimony, Singh attempted to deflect responsibility for the false statements on almost every page of his 25-page Application to others, including Vicky, Kuldeep, the consulate in India, the person who approved his Application, and the CBSA officer or officers at the Canadian border in Calgary. His Application is his responsibility and he is accountable for the lies contained therein. He signed it and included his declaration that he had “answered all questions in this application fully and truthfully.” It has been proven that he did not.
 I do not find it reasonable for a person who is seeking to enter Canada to delegate, not only the accuracy of the contents of his Application or paperwork, but also try to delegate the legal responsibility to another person, no matter how skilled that other person may be. Regardless, in the present trial, Vicky, Singh’s consultant, presented as suspicious and illegitimate from the beginning.
 Singh, in my opinion was responsible and is accountable for the submission of his dishonest Application and what comes from his dishonest Application. Stating that he did not read his Application and his supporting documentation is an unsuccessful defence, to the charge he faces, considering the evidence in the trial and the inherently suspicious circumstances characterized by unclear details and at odds with common sense and human experience: Onasanya, Morales.
 I find Surinder Singh guilty of knowingly, directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contrary to section 127(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, thereby committing an offence pursuant to section 128 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Despite the broad language and somewhat dispiriting case law there is some possibility of avoiding the brand of misrepresentation. There is scope for discretion by a decision maker. For example, what constitutes misrepresentation for one officer may simply be a failure to comply with the requirement under s.16(1) for another.
16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
Of course, Officers are human and make mistakes; the impugned issue may not in fact be material. Further, an allegation of misrepresentation that has resulted in a Section 44 Report can be potentially rejected by the Immigration Division. While a Report alleging this ground of inadmissibility can be brought against a Foreign National or Permanent Resident of Canada, however, there is no referral to the Immigration Division with respect to an allegation against a Foreign National involving s.40(1)(c).
While the IRB and the Court have been deferential to the breadth of the legislation and the powers of the responsible decision maker, there is some possibility of respite depending on the facts. Permanent Residents, as well as certain sponsored family members have recourse to the equitable jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Division.