Can Canada deny entry to a FIFA World Cup player before any criminal conviction?

That is precisely what happened in the case involving Thomas Partey [Partey v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 58286 (FC)], who was due to represent Ghana in its FIFA World Cup match against Panama at BMO Field in Toronto on June 17, 2026.

The facts

• Partey applied for a Temporary Resident Visa to travel to Canada as an accredited FIFA participant.

• IRCC learned he was facing multiple serious criminal charges in the United Kingdom.

• His visa was refused under s. 36(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which renders a foreign national inadmissible where there are reasonable grounds to believe they committed an act outside Canada that would constitute a serious Canadian offence, even without a conviction.

The issue

Could the Federal Court urgently intervene so Partey could enter Canada in time for the World Cup match?

Procedural history

Partey brought an emergency motion seeking:

• abridgment of virtually every procedural timeline,

• expedited judicial review,

• expedited production of the Certified Tribunal Record,

• or alternatively, a writ of mandamus requiring IRCC to immediately reconsider his application or decide his Temporary Resident Permit request.

Applicant's argument

The Applicant argued that:

• the refusal under s. 36(1)(c) was unreasonable;

• procedural fairness had been breached; and

• the Court should effectively grant mandamus by compelling an immediate reconsideration of the refusal and TRP request because the World Cup match was only days away.

  
  

Respondent's position

The Attorney General argued that:

• the Court could not bypass the statutory judicial review process;

• mandamus was unavailable on an interlocutory motion and should have been brought under rule 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act;

• the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for extraordinary relief; and

• Parliament intentionally made s. 36(1)(c) applicable without requiring a criminal conviction.

The Court's analysis

The Court dismissed the motion. It held that:

• The Applicant could not use an emergency motion to circumvent the Federal Courts Rules or effectively obtain a visa before leave, the Certified Tribunal Record, and the normal judicial review process.

• Mandamus was procedurally unavailable in the manner sought.

• Even if injunctive relief had been available, the RJR-MacDonald test was not satisfied. There was no serious issue, no irreparable harm in the legal sense, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving Canada's immigration system.

Most importantly, the Court confirmed that s. 36(1)(c) does not require a conviction. Parliament deliberately created a provision allowing inadmissibility where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a serious offence abroad. Accepting the Applicant's interpretation would create a gap allowing individuals charged with serious offences to avoid criminal inadmissibility until conviction.

The result

The emergency motion was dismissed. The Court merely encouraged IRCC to prioritize the pending reconsideration and Temporary Resident Permit requests but refused to order it.

Why this decision matters

The case is a reminder that Canadian immigration law is designed to protect the public interest, not to accommodate high-profile visitors or international sporting events. Whether the applicant is an ordinary traveller or a FIFA World Cup player, the same statutory framework applies. The Federal Court reaffirmed that urgency and public attention cannot override Parliament's inadmissibility provisions or the rule of law.