I ask because, as you say, it can be questionable when a person claims asylum a few months after arriving in the country. In this case, that's exactly what the father did. He didn't claim asylum when he arrived at Pearson airport.
I was talking to my colleague who is the immigration critic and who knows a lot more about this than I do. After looking at the chronology of events, he told me that this element would already have been enough to raise a red flag: Why is this person claiming asylum a few months after arriving?
I don't know if you can give us an answer, but has anyone in your department asked any questions? There are probably too many files for you to know about, but I know this one is of particular interest to you. When you look at the chronology of events after the fact, and you see that a few months separate the time of the individual's entry into the country and the time of their asylum claim, do you think that perhaps something irregular should have been seen at that time?