A procedural fairness letter (PFL) — sometimes called a "fairness letter" or "procedural letter" — is a letter sent by an IRCC (or CBSA) officer to an immigration applicant when the officer has concerns about the application that could lead to a refusal, and when the applicant has not yet had a meaningful opportunity to address those concerns. Sending a PFL is a practical expression of the duty of procedural fairness that applies to immigration decision-making under Canadian administrative law.

A PFL is not a refusal. It is an opportunity — the applicant is being told what the officer is concerned about and given a chance to respond before a final decision is made. Failing to respond — or responding inadequately — is likely to result in a refusal.

• Duty of procedural fairness — an officer who intends to make an adverse decision based on concerns that were not apparent from the application must, in most circumstances, give the applicant an opportunity to respond. This obligation arises from general principles of administrative law (see Baker v Canada [1999] 2 SCR 817) and not from any specific IRPA provision.
• IRPA s 11 — a foreign national must meet the requirements of the IRPA before being issued a visa or other document; the PFL process is part of how officers ensure fair assessment
• Vavilov framework — decisions that do not comply with procedural fairness are subject to judicial review; a failure to provide a PFL where one was required can be a reviewable error

When is a PFL sent?

A PFL is typically sent when an officer has developed concerns about an application that the applicant could not reasonably have anticipated when filing. Common scenarios include:

• Misrepresentation concerns: The officer believes the applicant may have misrepresented a material fact — for example, undisclosed previous visa refusals, undisclosed criminal history, or discrepancies between the application and supporting documents
• Health inadmissibility: The medical officer has found that the applicant's health condition may cause excessive demand on health or social services (see s 38 excessive demand)
• Admissibility concerns: The officer has obtained information suggesting criminal inadmissibility, security concerns, or other inadmissibility grounds that were not raised by the applicant
• Credibility concerns: The officer has doubts about the authenticity or accuracy of documents submitted, or about the genuineness of a relationship or employment claimed in the application
• Third-party information: The officer has received information from a third party (for example, CBSA intelligence, IRCC records, or information from foreign authorities) that raises concerns about the application

What the PFL contains

A PFL will typically:

• Identify the specific concern(s) the officer has — what information or evidence is causing the concern
• State a deadline by which the applicant must respond — typically 30 to 60 days from receipt, though this varies
• Explain that if the applicant does not respond, the officer may proceed to make a decision based on the available information

How to respond

The response to a PFL should directly address every concern identified in the letter. A well-prepared PFL response typically includes:

• A written explanation addressing each concern identified by the officer
• Documentary evidence supporting the explanation — for example, court documents addressing a criminal matter, medical evidence addressing a health concern, or correspondence evidence addressing a genuineness concern
• Legal argument where the concern involves an error of law or misapplication of policy

PFL responses are generally submitted through the same channel the application was filed (the IRCC online portal, by mail, or through the officer's contact details in the letter). The response deadline is strict — submissions received after the deadline may not be considered.

Officer's obligation after receiving the response

The officer must consider the response to the PFL before making a final decision. A decision that does not engage with the response, or that does not appear to have considered the response, may be found to be procedurally unfair on judicial review. The officer is not required to grant the application because a response was filed — they must consider the response but can still refuse if the concerns are not resolved to their satisfaction.

Not all adverse information requires a PFL. Where the concern arises from information the applicant provided themselves (for example, a criminal conviction disclosed in the application), the applicant has already had the opportunity to address the matter and a PFL may not be required. The duty to send a PFL arises specifically when the officer has concerns that the applicant could not reasonably have anticipated or addressed in their application.

Receiving a PFL does not mean the application will be refused — many applications that generate a PFL are ultimately approved after a satisfactory response. Conversely, receiving a positive decision without a PFL does not mean the officer had no concerns — some concerns may be resolved by the application materials themselves.

Legal advice should be sought as soon as a PFL is received. The response to a PFL is often one of the most important steps in an immigration application and can determine whether the application succeeds or fails.