Canadian Permanent Residence: Proposed Express Entry Changes and What They Mean for You

Canada’s economic immigration system may soon undergo a major transformation, with proposed changes to Express Entry that could significantly impact how candidates qualify for Canadian permanent residence. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), new selection criteria may prioritize high-paying jobs and earning potential over traditional factors like Canadian work experience.

Proposed Changes to Express Entry in 2026

IRCC is considering merging the Federal Skilled Worker Program, Canadian Experience Class, and Federal Skilled Trades Program into a single streamlined immigration pathway. This unified system would introduce standardized eligibility requirements, including:

  • A minimum of a high school diploma (supported by an Educational Credential Assessment);
  • Language proficiency of Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 6 or higher;
  • At least one year of cumulative work experience within the past three years in a TEER 0–3 occupation, whether gained in Canada or abroad.

This shift would place foreign work experience on equal footing with Canadian experience, making it easier for skilled workers outside Canada to compete for permanent residency.

Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) Overhaul

A key feature of the proposal is the introduction of a “High Wage Occupation” factor, which would award additional points to candidates working in occupations that earn above the national median wage. Job offer points – which were previously removed – could return but apply only to high-wage roles, aligning immigration selection with Canada’s labour market demands.

At the same time, IRCC is considering reducing or eliminating several current CRS factors, including:

  • Points for having a sibling in Canada;
  • Canadian post-secondary education credentials;
  • French-language proficiency bonuses;
  • The 67-point eligibility grid used in the Federal Skilled Worker Program.

What This Means for Permanent Residency Applicants

These proposed reforms signal a shift toward a more economically driven immigration system, prioritizing candidates with strong earning potential and in-demand skills. While the changes are not yet finalized, public consultations are expected in Spring 2026, and implementation timelines remain uncertain.

For skilled workers and families seeking Canadian permanent residence, staying informed and planning ahead is critical as the immigration landscape evolves.

Contact our immigration lawyers today for strategic advice and assistance with your permanent residency application and all other Canadian immigration matters.

If you are new to Canada and looking for support as you settle into your new life, Welcome Coach – a free web app created by PeaceGeeks in partnership with the UNHCR – brings together helpful information and resources in one place, making it easier for immigrants and refugees to navigate life in Canada and access the support they need.

/by

Recent Judgment Impacts the Ownership of Reproduction

A recent judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court, SH v. DH, 2018 ONSC 4506 (“SH”), has set an interesting precedent regarding embryos as property in a divorce when the couple has no biological connection to the embryo. Del Frate J., writing for the court, ultimately sided with the respondent wife while considering aspects of family law, contract law, and human rights law.

In SH, a married couple purchased four embryos from a facility in Georgia for $11,500 USD. Only two of the embryos were viable, and those were then sent to a facility in Mississauga, Ontario, to be implanted in the wife. The wife successfully gave birth to a boy from one of the embryos, and shortly thereafter the couple sought a divorce. They both wanted a different future for the remaining embryo. The wife wanted another child from it, and the husband wished to donate it. According to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (Canada), the sale of an embryo is illegal, so the court had to make a ruling on ownership.

There were two contracts signed by the couple over the course of these events that were considered. The first was at the facility in Georgia where the embryo was purchased. In this contract, it was stated that in the event of a divorce, the legal ownership must be determined in a property settlement. The second contract was signed at the facility in Mississauga when the embryo was implanted. In that contract, the parties agreed in the event of a divorce, the agency shall respect “the patient’s wishes”. The “patient” here was determined by the Court to be the wife, and following the judgment she was granted ownership of the remaining embryo. Arguments against this decision concerning her age, financial means, and best interests of the previous child were all dismissed.

In coming to the decision, Del Frate J. also considered the BC case JCM v. ANA, 2012 BCSC 584 (“JCM”). The Court in JCM held that sperm straws were also property in the course of a divorce, but because there were multiple straws (13), they were divisible between the parties. As the division was uneven (7 to 6), the party that received the extra straw had to compensate the other for her interest in a half straw. Accordingly, in SH, since the embryos were purchased for $2,875 USD each, the husband was compensated $1,438 for his interest in half the remaining embryo.

The decisions in SH and JCM set interesting precedents regarding the Courts’ treatment of reproductive materials as property and how that property will be valued moving forward.

/by
©2025 Jones Emery LLP Website by Caorda