Canada’s Immigration Department is facing nearly 300 legal challenges after implementing new rules that deny tens of thousands of asylum claimants the right to a hearing before the country’s independent immigration and refugee tribunal. Since March, at least 270 judicial review applications have been accepted by the Federal Court of Canada, with about 10 additional cases being filed each week, according to lawyers involved in the litigation.

The surge in court cases follows changes introduced under Bill C-12, which took effect in March 2026. The new legislation places stricter limits on asylum claims, restricting eligibility to those who have been in Canada for less than one year. The law was applied retroactively to affect claimants who entered Canada after June 24, 2020. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has estimated that about 30,000 asylum seekers may now be ineligible for tribunal hearings under the revised rules.

Shortly after the law’s enactment, IRCC began notifying foreign nationals who had filed refugee claims after residing in Canada for more than one year, warning of possible deportation. Before removal, asylum seekers retain the right to request a preremoval risk assessment by IRCC officials to evaluate whether returning to their home country would expose them to danger or persecution.

Legal experts representing asylum claimants argue that the absence of an in-person hearing before a tribunal compromises the fundamental rights of these individuals. They contend that the rigid one-year limit disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, including LGBTQ individuals and survivors of domestic violence, who may have legitimate reasons for delays in filing their claims.

“The sheer volume of these applications underscores the urgency of timely court management conferences to address the growing backlog,” said Maureen Silcoff, a Toronto-based immigration lawyer. Courts have yet to schedule comprehensive case management to deal with the influx.

Spokesperson Taous Ait, representing Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, declined to comment directly on ongoing litigation but emphasized that the new immigration law was designed to mitigate pressures on the asylum system and deter misuse. She stressed that the legislation complies with international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the government had announced the changes transparently through various channels.

However, critics argue the legislation is overly strict and risks violating constitutional protections. Some affected asylum seekers originate from countries, such as Iran and Lebanon, to which Canada currently does not deport individuals. This situation creates uncertainty for those claimants, as only individuals subject to deportation orders are eligible for preremoval risk assessments.

Legal practitioners also warn that the influx of judicial reviews is straining the Federal Court’s capacity. Joycna Kang, another Toronto immigration lawyer, observed that the court was already handling record volumes of immigration cases, and the addition of Bill C-12 challenges has exacerbated the backlog. She highlighted that the law offers no room for IRCC officers to consider compassionate or practical factors behind delayed claims, nor does it provide claimants a meaningful opportunity to explain their circumstances.

Max Berger, a Toronto lawyer who has filed 22 judicial review applications, noted that most of his clients are dissatisfied about losing access to tribunal hearings. He suggested the actual number of affected claimants is likely much higher, as many are represented by immigration consultants who cannot represent clients in Federal Court, potentially limiting access to remedies.

Ravi Jain, former president of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, criticized the government for enacting rules that unfairly restrict access to protection, suggesting that better regulatory oversight of immigration practitioners would have been a less punitive approach. He described Bill C-12 as a law that was likely to face legal challenges from the outset and that unduly impacts those genuinely fearing persecution.