Up to $7,000: Canada Opens Compensation Path for Victims of Immigration Consultant Misconduct Since 2021

New rules have taken effect in Canada allowing people who suffered financial losses because of dishonest conduct by licensed immigration and citizenship consultants to seek compensation, including for misconduct dating back to November 23, 2021.

The regulations came into force on July 15, 2026, as part of broader measures designed to strengthen consumer protection and professional accountability in the immigration consulting sector.

The new framework includes a compensation fund administered by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.

The maximum payment is set at $7,000 for each successful claim. Compensation is not automatic, however, and applicants must prove that they suffered a direct financial loss because of dishonest conduct by a consultant who was licensed when the immigration or citizenship services were provided.

Conduct that may qualify includes theft, fraud and the misuse of client funds. It may also include providing misleading information, encouraging a client to submit false information, deliberately failing to report a claim to professional liability insurance or refusing to cooperate with an insurer.

The retroactive element means that the misconduct does not need to have occurred after the rules took effect in July 2026. Claims may involve dishonest acts dating back to November 23, 2021, when the current regulatory college began operating.

Eligibility is subject to several conditions. A formal complaint must normally be submitted through the college’s complaint process, and a final decision must be issued by the Discipline Committee or, in less common circumstances, the Complaints Committee on or after July 15, 2026.

The committee must determine that the financial loss was directly connected to dishonest conduct. A claimant may also be refused compensation if they knowingly participated in or contributed to the misconduct.

Complaints that were fully closed before July 15, 2026, as well as duplicate complaints, are not expected to qualify under the published guidelines.

The compensation fund does not cover people who were defrauded by unlicensed representatives, sometimes known as “ghost consultants.” The program applies only to misconduct committed by consultants licensed by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.

Authorities therefore advise prospective clients to confirm a consultant’s name and licensing status in the public register before paying fees or signing a service agreement.

In some cases, the college may contact an affected client directly when a disciplinary decision has already confirmed the dishonest conduct and identified the amount of the financial loss.

In other cases, the victim may need to file a separate compensation claim, particularly when the amount of the loss has not been established or when a case did not proceed through the standard disciplinary process for regulatory reasons.

The amount awarded may take into account the proven financial loss, related expenses and any money the claimant has already received through insurance or a court judgment.

The fund cannot be used to obtain double compensation for the same loss.

Receiving compensation from the fund does not remove a victim’s right to pursue a civil lawsuit or use other legal remedies. The college has described the program as a supplement to existing legal options rather than a replacement for them.

A person who receives only partial compensation may still pursue the remaining amount through the courts, provided they have not already recovered the full loss from another source.

Claims may take time to process because compensation is generally considered only after the complaint and disciplinary procedures have been completed and a final decision has confirmed both the dishonest conduct and the resulting financial loss.

The new system represents a significant change for immigration applicants, international students and others who rely on licensed consultants.

Under the previous regulatory framework, clients did not have a direct compensation mechanism for recovering financial losses even when professional misconduct had been proven.