On July 15, 2026, new regulations came into force establishing a client compensation fund for CICC licensees. Clients who suffered financial harm can now apply to the College for compensation. The College then acquires subrogation rights against the licensee responsible. The gap visible in decisions like Mittal is now closed. RCIC's financial exposure has changed.
Rishi Mittal had 3,032 immigration clients in a single year. His staff conducted every consultation, gave every piece of advice, and handled every file. His name was on the retainer agreements. He was functionally absent from every one of them. Forty-five complaints reached the College. Four form the basis of this decision. His licence is permanently revoked
Veronica Moye was the only licensed immigration consultant in a commercial operation that spanned Dubai, India, and Vancouver. She signed the retainer agreements. She was the authorized representative on every file. And she did essentially none of the work. When five clients complained to the CICC, her explanation was that she had too many files to supervise personally. The Panel's response was permanent revocation. Delegation is not a defence. It never was.
Many RCICs believe that giving a client portal access fulfills their duty to keep them informed. In reality, this "Portal Trap" often leads to CICC complaints. Under Section 38(2) of the Code, you are strictly liable for staff oversight, and under Section 22(3), you must provide proactive written updates regardless of portal access. Whether through outsourced neglect or assuming the client is monitoring their own file, systemic failures are not a legal defense. Learn the 3 SOPs every licensee needs to protect their license
CICC v Bayegan, 2025 CICC 26 confirms that good character in licensing turns on disclosure, not explanation. The Registrar refused an RCIC licence after finding it probable the applicant engaged in unauthorized practice and failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges in her statutory declaration. On appeal, the Registrar Appeal Committee upheld the refusal, stressing that licensing is a credibility assessment, not a trial on the merits of alleged misconduct or criminal charges. Non-disclosure itself justified refusal. Attempts to introduce new evidence and contextual explanations on appeal were rejected. The appeal was dismissed and $7,500 in costs ordered, reinforcing that statutory declarations are foundational.