Interpreting MNI with Changing Family Size

Kaur v. MCI, 2025 FC 602 is an interesting case -it's about a refusal of a sponsorship due to failure to meet the MNI. Now -there are two boxes on the top of the application -the one on the left if ticked means the sponsor wants to withdraw if ineligible and gets a refund; the other on the right tells IRCC to continue processing notwithstanding ineligibility. The one on the right allows for appeal rights for MNI issues and anomalies or variances can be addressed via the IAD which allows for a de novo appeal and H&C considerations. This is the box that should be ticked. If the one on the left is ticked, the application is returned with no recourse to the IAD. In such cases (usually unintentional) the only recourse is the Federal Court. 

That's what happened here. The sponsor sought judicial review of the IRCC decision to refuse based on failing to meet the MNI; an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officer found Malikpreet Singh ineligible to sponsor his mother, Gulwant Kaur, and minor sister, Muskandeep Kaur, under the parent/grandparent sponsorship program. The core issue is the officer’s interpretation of the income requirements under clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), particularly how family size is calculated for the minimum necessary income (MNI) plus 30% over the three years preceding the sponsorship application.

Key Facts

• Applicants: Gulwant Kaur and her minor daughter, Muskandeep Kaur, applied for permanent residence through the parent/grandparent sponsorship program in December 2021.
• Sponsor: Malikpreet Singh, a Canadian permanent resident and the applicants’ son/sibling, was the sponsor.
• Income Requirement: Sponsors must demonstrate a total income equal to the MNI plus 30% for each of the three consecutive taxation years preceding the application, based on family size.
• Family Size Issue: Singh’s family size varied over the three years (2018–2020):
• 2018: Five (Singh, his mother, father, minor sister, and another sister).
• 2019: Four (father passed away).
• 2020 and at application (2021): Three (Singh, mother, minor sister; the other sister aged out at 23).
• Officer’s Decision (January 4, 2023): The IRCC officer found Singh ineligible because he did not meet the MNI plus 30% for the larger family sizes in 2018 and 2019, following IRCC guidelines that calculate family size on a year-by-year basis.
• Applicants’ Position: Had the officer used the family size at the time of application (three), Singh would have met the income requirement for all three years.
• IRCC Guidelines: Updated in 2022, the guidelines instruct officers to use the family size for each respective year when calculating MNI, but provide no reasoning for this approach.
• Statutory Provision: Clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B) of the IRPR requires sponsors to show sufficient income for the three years preceding the application, but does not explicitly state how family size should be calculated.

Applicants’ Arguments

• The officer’s interpretation of clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B) is unreasonable and misaligns with the text, context, and purpose of the IRPR.
• Family size should “crystallize” at the time of the application (three in 2021), as the regulation’s preamble ties the sponsor’s obligations to the application date.
• Requiring sponsors to show income for family members who are no longer eligible for sponsorship (e.g., deceased father, aged-out sister) is inconsistent with the regulation’s purpose of ensuring financial support for those who can be sponsored.
• The officer’s approach undermines the legislative intent, as articulated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS), which emphasizes financial stability to support the sponsored group over the sponsorship period.

Respondent’s (Minister’s) Arguments

• The applicants are barred from raising the statutory interpretation argument on judicial review because they did not present it to the officer, especially since IRCC guidelines were published and should have been contested.
• If the argument is allowed, the officer’s interpretation, aligned with the 2022 IRCC guidelines, is reasonable and consistent with the plain meaning of the IRPR and the MNI definition.
• The regulation does not support the applicants’ interpretation, which would require reading in words to fix family size at the application date.
• The year-by-year family size calculation ensures a robust assessment of the sponsor’s financial stability.

Justice Sadrehashemi’s Analysis and Findings

What the Justice Says:

1. Procedural Issue (Statutory Interpretation Argument):
• The applicants are not barred from raising the statutory interpretation issue on judicial review. Administrative decision-makers must interpret statutory provisions reasonably, regardless of whether parties make specific submissions (relying on Vavilov and Mason).
• The Minister’s cited cases are inapplicable, as they involve new arguments unrelated to statutory interpretation.
2. Reasonableness of Officer’s Interpretation:
• The officer’s interpretation, following the 2022 IRCC guidelines, calculates MNI based on family size for each of the three preceding years. However, the guidelines lack reasoning and do not explain how this approach aligns with the regulation’s purpose.
• The applicants’ interpretation—that family size should be fixed at the application date—is plausible, as the regulation’s preamble ties obligations to the application period, and the text does not explicitly mandate a year-by-year calculation.
• The officer’s approach raises concerns about consistency with the regulation’s purpose, as outlined in the RIAS: ensuring sponsors can support those eligible for sponsorship over the undertaking period.
• Example: Requiring Singh to show income for a deceased father and an aged-out sister (ineligible for sponsorship) does not align with ensuring support for the sponsored group. Conversely, the guidelines allow sponsors with increased family size (e.g., new spouse/child) to meet requirements for only one year, undermining the goal of long-term stability.
• The officer failed to demonstrate that their interpretation “best reflects the legislature’s intent,” especially given the harsh consequences (ineligibility) for the applicants (Vavilov, Mason).
3. Remedy:
• The judicial review is allowed, the officer’s decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination.
• The new decision-maker must explain how their interpretation of clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B) aligns with the text, context, and purpose of the provision, considering the Court’s reasons.
4. Certified Question:
• The Minister’s proposed question on whether family size should be fixed at the application date or vary yearly is not certified. The issue affects a small subset of cases, has not arisen frequently despite the regulation’s longevity, and the Court has not definitively interpreted the provision, making certification inappropriate.

What the Justice Does Not Say:

• The Justice does not definitively rule on the correct interpretation of clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B), emphasizing that courts should generally avoid pronouncing on provisions entrusted to administrative decision-makers (Vavilov).
• The Justice does not explicitly endorse the applicants’ interpretation but finds it plausible and sufficient to question the officer’s approach.
• The Justice does not comment on the validity of the IRCC guidelines beyond noting their lack of reasoning and non-binding nature.
• The Justice does not address the specific income figures or calculations, focusing solely on the interpretive issue.

Ultimate Decision and Implications

• Decision: The application for judicial review is granted, the January 4, 2023 decision is set aside, and the sponsorship application is sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer, who must provide a reasoned interpretation of the income requirement.
• Implications:
• For the Applicants: The decision offers a second chance for Singh to be deemed eligible if the new officer adopts an interpretation fixing family size at the application date or otherwise finds his income sufficient.
• For IRCC: The decision highlights deficiencies in the 2022 guidelines and requires IRCC to justify its interpretation of family size calculations, potentially leading to revised guidance or a reinterpretation of clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B).
• For Future Cases: While the issue is not certified, the decision may prompt IRCC to clarify how family size is assessed in sponsorship applications, particularly when it varies over the three-year period. It underscores the importance of aligning administrative interpretations with statutory purpose.
• Legal Precedent: The case reinforces Vavilov’s requirement for reasoned statutory interpretation by administrative decision-makers and the ability to raise such issues on judicial review, even if not argued before the officer.

While the Applicant succeeded it remains to be seen whether an officer will concur with the Applicant's arguments at the Court.