Yes, in the situation the Supreme Court of Canada decided. In Pepa, 2025 SCC 21, the majority held that the moment a person must hold a permanent resident visa to have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) under section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is the time of arrival in Canada. A visa holder who lands, is reported for inadmissibility, and sees the visa expire while the case waits for a hearing does not lose the appeal because of that delay.
The decision matters beyond its own facts. It tells tribunals that relying on old precedent without reading the current statute can make a decision unreasonable, and it reinforces that harsh consequences call for real explanation. This article draws on a February 2026 LPEN case-law review session, where the presenters described Pepa as important enough to deserve its own section, and on the current text of IRPA.
Key Takeaways
- Under Pepa, a foreign national who arrives in Canada holding a valid permanent resident visa keeps the section 63(2) right to appeal a removal order to the IAD, even if the visa expires before the removal order is made.
- The IAD’s earlier contrary decision was unreasonable because it relied on cases decided under an older provision and did no statutory interpretation of the current wording.
- The Court repeated a principle from Vavilov: where a decision has particularly harsh consequences, the decision maker must explain why it best reflects what Parliament intended.
- Pepa does not create an appeal where IRPA bars one. Section 64 still removes IAD appeals for certain grounds of inadmissibility.
- Losing an appeal right is a serious consequence. If you arrived on a PR visa and were reported at the port of entry, get advice before any deadline passes.
What happened in Pepa
Dori Pepa came to Canada at 20 on a still-valid permanent resident visa, as a dependent child. At the port of entry she disclosed that she had married a few weeks earlier. A married applicant no longer met the dependent child definition, and the change should have been reported before travel. She was allowed into Canada and referred for further examination on admissibility.
Her PR visa expired on September 16, 2018. Her admissibility hearing took place on October 18, 2018. After a section 44(1) report, a removal order was made against her for misrepresentation. She tried to appeal to the IAD. The IAD found it had no jurisdiction: because her visa had expired before the removal order was made, she was no longer a person who “holds” a permanent resident visa.
The Federal Court (2021 FC 348) upheld the IAD, noting that section 63(2) is written in the present tense and that the IAD had followed precedent. The Federal Court of Appeal (2023 FCA 102) agreed, finding it reasonable for the IAD to adopt the case law and not do its own statutory interpretation.
The provision at the centre of the case
Section 63(2) of IRPA reads: “A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision to make a removal order against them made under subsection 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing.”
The question was simple to state and hard to answer: at what point in time must the person hold the visa? When they arrive, when the report is written, or when the removal order is made?
What the Supreme Court majority decided
Justice Martin, for the majority, found the IAD’s decision unreasonable for three reasons, summarised at paragraphs 9 to 11 of the judgment:
- Wrong precedents. The IAD relied on cases that were decided under a different and outdated provision, were not on point, or did not bind it.
- No statutory interpretation. The IAD did not analyse the current wording of section 63(2) at all. That is not always required, but here a proper reading of the text, context and purpose would have compelled a different result. The majority found it unreasonable to conclude that an appeal right is lost before the decision it exists to appeal has even been made.
- Harsh consequences without justification. Quoting Vavilov at paragraph 133, the Court repeated that where a decision has particularly harsh consequences, the decision maker must explain why the decision best reflects the legislature’s intention. The IAD had not done so.
The presenters highlighted how much weight the majority placed on absurdity. Whether a person keeps an appeal right should not depend on things outside their control, such as the expiry date of a passport or a medical exam (which can drive the visa’s validity) or how quickly the government schedules a hearing.
The majority concluded that the only reasonable interpretation of section 63(2) is that the relevant time is arrival in Canada. Ms. Pepa held a PR visa when she entered, so she had a right to appeal to the IAD.
The concurring and dissenting reasons
Justice Rowe agreed the IAD decision was unreasonable but disagreed with declaring a single reasonable outcome. He was concerned that doing so risks “disguised correctness” review, and would have sent the matter back to the IAD to decide again with the majority’s guidance.
Justices Côté and O’Bonsawin dissented. In their view, the IAD had considered instructive precedents, its own past decisions, the statutory scheme and the principles of interpretation, and its decision was reasonable when read as a whole. They did not think the difference between the old and new provisions made it unreasonable.
What Pepa means for people facing removal
If you arrived on a PR visa and were reported at the border
The most direct effect is on people in Ms. Pepa’s position: they landed on a valid PR visa, something came up at the port of entry, and the case was referred for a hearing. Hearings can take weeks or months. Under Pepa, the expiry of the visa in the meantime does not by itself take away the IAD appeal. An IAD appeal is often more valuable than judicial review because the IAD can look at the merits and, in many removal order appeals, humanitarian and compassionate factors. See our IAD appeals guide for how those appeals run.
What Pepa does not change
Pepa interprets section 63(2). It does not override section 64. Under section 64(1), there is no IAD appeal for a person found inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, sanctions, serious criminality or organized criminality. Section 64(3) separately limits misrepresentation appeals in the sponsorship context under section 63(1). The appeal right also still has to be exercised on time. Whether Pepa helps you depends on which subsection your case falls under and on the ground of inadmissibility.
It also does not excuse the underlying issue. The finding against Ms. Pepa was misrepresentation, and IRPA section 40(1)(a) makes a person inadmissible for “directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts”. A change in marital status, a new child, or a change in family composition before landing must be reported. Our misrepresentation guide explains the five-year consequence and the available responses.
A broader lesson about how officers and tribunals decide
The LPEN presenters drew practical lessons that apply to any immigration file, not only appeals:
- Check whether the case law is out of date. A decision that followed an old line of authority may be vulnerable if the statute has since changed.
- Check whether other decisions reach different conclusions. Tribunals do not always cite the cases that cut the other way.
- Do not shy away from statutory interpretation. Raising the text, context and purpose of a provision in submissions can constrain what a decision maker can reasonably conclude.
- Point out absurd or unintended consequences. Pepa shows that an interpretation producing arbitrary results for the individual can be found unreasonable.
These are the tools used in Federal Court immigration litigation and in written submissions at first instance. Pepa confirms that they carry real weight at the highest level.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Pepa, 2025 SCC 21 decide?
The majority of the Supreme Court held that, for the IAD appeal right in IRPA section 63(2), a foreign national must hold a permanent resident visa at the time of arrival in Canada. A visa that expires later, before the removal order is made, does not remove the appeal right.
My PR visa expired while I waited for an admissibility hearing. Can I still appeal a removal order?
If you arrived in Canada holding a valid PR visa and the removal order was made under section 44(2) or at an admissibility hearing, Pepa supports an IAD appeal. Section 64 bars and appeal deadlines still apply, so have the file reviewed quickly.
Does Pepa help someone refused a PR visa abroad?
Not directly. Pepa concerns people who arrived in Canada on a PR visa and then faced a removal order. A refusal abroad raises different routes, such as a sponsorship appeal under section 63(1) or judicial review in the Federal Court.
Was the Supreme Court unanimous?
No. The majority, written by Justice Martin, found only one reasonable interpretation. Justice Rowe agreed the decision was unreasonable but would have sent it back to the IAD. Justices Côté and O’Bonsawin would have upheld the IAD’s decision as reasonable.
Why does Pepa matter for applicants who are not facing removal?
It reinforces that decision makers must engage with the current wording of the law and must justify decisions with harsh consequences. Those principles apply to refusals, reviews and submissions across immigration law.
Ask us about your matter
Tell us where your file stands and we will reply within two business days. Please do not send documents or identification numbers in this first message.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on immigration appeals, removal orders and Federal Court litigation. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
