Federal Court of Appeal denies appeal of immigration consultant who lost licence

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of an immigration consultant whom the Federal Court declared a vexatious litigant after he had brought a “barrage” of proceedings, including a judicial review application challenging the revocation of his licence. 

In Sandhu v. College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, 2026 FCA 60, the appellant and his brother, who were licensed immigration consultants, faced disciplinary proceedings spanning more than two years before the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants. 

To assail the authenticity of the College’s evidence, the brothers brought numerous proceedings, including five unsuccessful motions in the disciplinary matter, one action against the College in the Federal Court, and three judicial review applications before that Court. The decision-makers either dismissed or discontinued the proceedings. 

The College’s Discipline Committee revoked the brothers’ licences upon finding them liable for professional misconduct. The committee ordered them to notify their clients and the public about the revocation and to grant refunds to clients who had received insufficient services. 

The brothers applied for a judicial review of the Discipline Committee’s final decision. The appellant also brought: 

• an action against the College 
• an application seeking mandamus relief against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the federal attorney general 
• multiple motions and letters to the Federal Court 
• an unsuccessful attempt to ask the Federal Court of Appeal to set aside a Federal Court order 

Upon deeming the appellant a vexatious litigant under s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act, 1985, the Federal Court regulated his access to the court by preventing him from commencing or continuing litigation and from filing documents without leave. 

The Federal Court found that it could not permit a party to make allegations continuously and frivolously in a series of proceedings where those allegations were irrelevant. 

In case T-1428-24, the Federal Court dismissed the appellant’s remaining action against the College. In this action for damages, the appellant alleged breaches of his Charter rights and serious criminal violations involving the forgery of documents and signatures on the part of the College. 

In case T-983-23, which was ongoing, the Federal Court did not dismiss the brothers’ judicial review application challenging the Discipline Committee’s decision revoking their licences. 

Appeal dismissed

The appeal court found no legal errors or palpable and overriding errors on a question of fact or on a question of mixed fact and law. 

First, the appeal court saw no misapplication of the legal principles on vexatious litigants. The appeal court noted that the Federal Court: 

• properly identified the hallmarks of vexatiousness and the overarching question of whether the appellant’s ungovernability or harmfulness to the court system and its participants warranted regulating his court access 
• considered the appellant’s circumstances to decide whether there were hallmarks of vexatiousness 
• weighed the merits, including the appellant’s allegations regarding the authenticity of the College’s evidence, which might be relevant to the judicial review application of the Discipline Committee’s decision 

As this application was pending, the appeal court ruled that the Federal Court would consider whether the allegations were relevant and what weight to give them. 

Second, the appeal court found no error in the Federal Court’s dismissal of the action in T-1428-24. The appeal court acknowledged that the Federal Court addressed the merits of the action before dismissing it. 

Third, the appeal court saw no breach of procedural fairness due to the absence of a ruling on the appellant’s motion asking the Federal Court to grant leave to file the privacy commissioner’s Mar. 7, 2025 letter and to take judicial notice of its findings. 

The appeal court reached this conclusion for the following reasons: 

• There was no evidence of the filing of the motion with the Federal Court or evidence of the letter’s contents 
• Section 40 of the Federal Courts Act required the attorney general’s consent 
• There was a compelling argument that the attorney general’s decision to consent to an application was not amenable to judicial review 
• The attorney general’s reason for consenting to the College’s application for a vexatious litigant order was irrelevant to the overarching issue before the Federal Court 

Fourth, the appeal court held that the Federal Court did not undermine judicial integrity. The appeal court explained that the Federal Court’s casting of some doubt on the merits of the brothers’ pending judicial review did not jeopardize the integrity of the proceedings or risk constituting a reasonable apprehension of bias. 

The appeal court awarded the College costs of $5,220.