By Erkan Ates, Canadian Immigration and Tax Lawyer at EA Law.
In my legal practice, I regularly advise clients on both immigration and tax matters. While both areas involve high-stakes interactions with federal agencies, the client experience can be dramatically different depending on whether they are dealing with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
The contrast in how these two departments communicate with individuals is stark. Despite both handling complex personal data, enforcing important legal obligations, and managing a high volume of correspondence, CRA has consistently shown a more transparent, navigable, and accessible approach to client communication. IRCC, by comparison, leaves many clients feeling lost in a black box.
This isn’t just an abstract problem. It affects real people in stressful situations, those applying for establishing status in Canada, or simply trying to comply with document requests on time.
Access and Transparency: CRA Sets a Higher Bar
Clients engaging with the CRA typically have access to a well-designed online portal (MyAccount) where they can view notices, letters, and decisions with clear dates, references, and explanations. CRA communication tends to be structured and labelled, such as a “Notice of Assessment” or “Request for Information,” which helps clients understand where they are in the process and what is expected of them.
In contrast, IRCC communication often arrives through vague email prompts directing clients to their online account, where they may find a generic letter lacking context or explanation. Refusals or procedural fairness letters frequently offer little more than boilerplate language, with no meaningful breakdown of reasoning. Clients are left guessing what part of their application was weak or what evidence may have been overlooked.
Where CRA gives clients access to their full tax file and audit history — often without formal access requests — IRCC forces clients to rely on Access to Information requests (ATIPs), which take months. By the time reasons are obtained, opportunities to respond or seek review may already be lost.
Response Quality: Substance vs. Scripts
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from clients dealing with IRCC is that they feel like they’re shouting into a void. Emails go unanswered, webform inquiries are returned with canned responses that fail to address the actual issue, and call centre agents cannot meaningfully assist.
By contrast, clients calling CRA are far more likely to speak with an agent who can verify the status of a file, explain next steps, or escalate a concern appropriately. This is not to suggest CRA is flawless, but its baseline communication is far more functional and responsive.
Critically, this cannot be chalked up to workload. CRA handles millions of individual and business tax returns, processes benefits, conducts audits, and fields calls on everything from CERB to payroll deductions. Volume alone does not explain IRCC’s communication gaps. The difference lies in how each agency invests in systems that treat people like participants in a process, not obstacles to be filtered.
Timelines, Deadlines, and the Real World
When IRCC sets a deadline, often 7 to 30 days, it frequently does so without regard to whether clients have received proper notice, can access their documents, or understand what is being requested. Extension requests are rarely acknowledged, let alone granted. In many cases, there is no written confirmation that a response was received, even when it is critical to an application’s survival.
CRA, by contrast, operates with published timelines and clear administrative policies around extension requests, objections, and reviews. There are actual recourses when deadlines are missed, and those recourses are not opaque. Even in audit or collections contexts, CRA gives taxpayers a fighting chance to comply, dispute, or clarify.
Building a System That Works for People
These differences are not trivial. When IRCC fails to communicate clearly, the stakes are enormous: a missed deadline may mean a refused application, a separated family, or a lost opportunity to remain in Canada. Yet clients are too often met with silence, templated replies, or unexplained decisions.
As a lawyer, I spend far more time interpreting IRCC’s communications than CRA’s, and that’s telling.
This is not a call for perfection, but for basic administrative fairness. If CRA can handle tax obligations, audits, benefit payments, and appeals while offering coherent communication, then IRCC, an agency managing life-changing decisions, must do better.
Communication Is a Form of Justice
Effective communication is not just an administrative function; it is part of procedural fairness. For clients trying to navigate Canada’s immigration system, poor communication from IRCC is a systematic disadvantage.
What’s more, this communication gap doesn’t just harm applicants; it burdens the entire system. By issuing vague communication and non-responsive templated replies, IRCC drives up the number of reconsideration requests, ATIP filings, and judicial reviews. An application that could have been resolved once ends up handled twice, and often escalates to senior officers or the Federal Court. The result is a heavier workload for IRCC and for the justice system, much of it avoidable.
IRCC has a great deal to learn from how CRA communicates: with clarity, accessibility, and accountability. Until then, lawyers will keep bridging the gap for their clients. If you’ve had trouble understanding an IRCC decision or feel unsure how to move forward, seek legal help early.
