Wording fixes to immigration regulations

Summary#

These are final rules called SOR/2026-40 that make small wording fixes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The changes correct differences between the English and French texts and make one sentence clearer. The amendments came into force on February 26, 2026.

What it does#

• Fixes French wording in subsection 253(2) so it matches the English meaning (changes “prend toutes les mesures raisonnables” to “prend les mesures raisonnables”).
• Changes the English wording in paragraph 255(3)(b) from “exercise all reasonable care” to “exercise reasonable care” so it matches the French wording.
• Rewrites subsection 258(3) to use the stronger word “shall” instead of “will” and fixes a small French grammatical error (adds a missing “de”). The new sentence says that if a seized document is not returned, it will be held as long as needed for administering federal law and then either returned to the authority that issued it or disposed of under Canadian law.
• These are wording and clarity changes. The government says they do not create new costs for businesses or the public.

Note: these edits followed concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

Who's affected#

• Canada Border Services Agency officers and other officials who seize or handle documents and property under the immigration rules.
• People whose documents or items are seized during immigration enforcement (for example, travellers or immigration applicants).
• Lawyers, advocates, and anyone watching how seized documents are retained or disposed.
• For most members of the public, the changes are technical and will not be directly noticeable.

If it is unclear who is affected by a particular point, the source does not say so.

Why it matters#

• Matching the English and French texts reduces confusion about what the rules require.
• Replacing “will” with “shall” makes the duty clearer for officials deciding what to do with seized documents. That can matter if there is a dispute about whether a seized document must be returned to the issuing authority or destroyed.
• Overall, the changes are small drafting fixes meant to improve clarity and legal certainty rather than to change policy.