Federal Court Dismisses Judicial Review of Work Permit Refusal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260602 Docket: IMM-7115-25 Citation: 2026 FC 712 Ottawa, Ontario, June 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Ms. [APPELLANT], citizen of Iran, is seeking judicial review of a decision dated February 12, 2025 [Decision] of an Officer of the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing her application for a work permit. The Officer was not satisfied that Ms. [APPELLANT] met the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. [ 2 ] On judicial review before this Court, Ms. [APPELLANT] raises two issues with the Officer’s Decision: Was the Decision rendered in a procedurally fair manner? Was the Officer’s Decision refusing Ms. [APPELLANT] ’s work permit unreasonable? [ 3 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] argues the Decision was procedurally unfair because the Officer should have notified her that documents referenced in her application were missing. She further argues that the Decision lacks transparency and justification, making it difficult to comprehend the rationale behind the refusal. She submits the Officer relied solely on template language in both the refusal letter and the [NAME] [[NAME]] notes, failing to offer additional insight in the latter. [ 4 ] The Respondent, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister], submits the Decision was rendered in a procedurally fair manner because the Officer did not have a duty to alert Ms. [APPELLANT]’s of the shortcomings in her application. The Minister argues that the Officer provided sufficient reasons to explain their Decision and reasonably refused Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application for failing to demonstrate that she would be eligible for a spousal work permit because she failed to satisfy the Officer that her spouse was working in Canada. [ 5 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Ms. [APPELLANT] did not establish that there was a breach of her right to procedural fairness. Moreover, the Officer reasonably assessed Ms. [APPELLANT] ’s application and justified why she did not qualify for a work permit under the [NAME].

II. Decision Under Judicial Review [ 6 ] By letter dated February 12, 2025, the Officer denied Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit application under the [NAME] on the basis that they were not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her stay as required by paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR because (1) the compensation (monetary or other) indicated in her job offer, her assets and her financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for herself; (2) she has significant family ties in Canada; (3) she does not have significant family ties outside Canada; and (4) the purpose of her visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in her application. [ 7 ] The Officer’s Decision is further explained in the [NAME] notes dated February 12, 2025, which forms part of the Decision, as per [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [ [NAME] ] at para 44, and are reproduced below: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Applicant fai[led] to satisfy me that HOF is currently employed or will be employed in Canada. Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

III. Standard of Review [ 8 ] The parties agree that the merits of the Decision are reviewable on the presumptive standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 10 , 25. [ 9 ] To avoid intervention on judicial review, a decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the decision under review: [NAME] at para 90. [ 10 ] [ADDRESS] must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision maker; however, a decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” : [NAME] at paras 125-126. The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up” : [NAME] at para 104. [ 11 ] The reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court show curial deference to such a decision: [NAME] at para 85. The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable: [NAME] at para 100. [ 12 ] On the other hand, breaches of procedural fairness in administrative contexts have been considered reviewable on a correctness standard or subject to a “reviewing exercise … ‘best reflected in the correctness standard’ even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied” : [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 [ [NAME] ] at para 54. [ 13 ] The duty of procedural fairness “is ‘eminently variable’, inherently flexible and context-specific” ; it must be determined with reference to all the circumstances, including the non-exhaustive list of factors stated in [NAME]  at paragraphs 22-23: [NAME] at para 77. [ 14 ] In summary, the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair. In the words of the Federal Court of Appeal, the ultimate or fundamental questions are: [56] No matter how much deference is accorded administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond . It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice— was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? Procedural fairness is not sacrificed on the altar of deference. [NAME] at para 56 [Emphasis added].

IV. Analysis A. Applicable Principles of Immigration Law and Statutory Provisions [ 15 ] The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that foreign nationals have no unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51 at para 46, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733. [ 16 ] The applicable statutory provisions are subsection 11(1) and paragraph 20 (1)(b) of the IRPA and apply equally to work permit applicants as per paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR. These provisions read as follows, respectively: Application before entering Canada 11 (1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a [NAME] or for any other document required by the regulations. The [NAME] or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. [NAME] et documents 11 (1) [NAME] doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les [NAME] et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, que [NAME] n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi. Obligation on entry 20 (1) Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, (…) (b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the [NAME] or other document required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. Obligation à l’entrée au Canada 20 (1) [NAME] non visé à l’article 19 qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou à y séjourner est tenu de prouver : (…) (b) pour devenir un résident temporaire, qu’il détient les [NAME] ou autres documents requis par règlement et aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. Work permits 200 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) — and, in respect of a foreign national who makes an application for a work permit before entering Canada, subject to section 87.3 of the Act — an officer shall issue a work permit to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that (…) Permis de travail — demande préalable à l’entrée au Canada 200 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), et de l’article 87.3 de la Loi dans le cas de [NAME] qui fait la demande préalablement à son entrée au Canada, l’agent délivre un permis de travail à [NAME] si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments ci-après sont établis (…) (b) the foreign national will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9; b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9; B. Was the Decision rendered in a procedurally fair manner? [ 17 ] The parties agree that even if the level of procedural fairness afforded in the context of a work permit application is at the lower end of the scale, an applicant must know the case they have to meet: [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1002 at para 34 ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 1163 at para 26 . [ 18 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] states that it was only upon reviewing the affidavit evidence of the Minister, filed in response to the present application for judicial review, that she became aware that certain documents that she had expressly referenced in both the table of contents and the body of her submission letter had been omitted in her original application. There is no debate that the omitted documents (referred to as Exhibit 4) from Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application for a work permit were meant to be filed along with her original application, which omitted documents included the [COMPANY] records, her spouse’s employment letter and pay stubs. [ 19 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] argues that procedural fairness requires that an applicant be afforded an opportunity to respond to an officer’s concerns regarding the evidence submitted prior to a decision being rendered based on those concerns: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1091 [ [APPELLANT] ] at para 27. Ms. [APPELLANT] states that by failing to provide her with an opportunity to address concerns arising from the omission of Exhibit 4, despite clear indications that such evidence existed and was intended to be submitted, the Officer made a veiled credibility finding without affording her with a meaningful opportunity to respond. Ms. [APPELLANT] states that because she was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns resulted in a breach of procedural fairness. As a result, she argues the Decision must be set aside. [ 20 ] The first issue with Ms. [APPELLANT]’s argument is that the Officer did not have any concerns regarding the credibility of the evidence in support of her application. As is evident from the record and the Decision, the Officer’s concerns in this case relate to the sufficiency of the information in her application, rather than to its credibility. The Officer did not disbelieve Ms. [APPELLANT] or doubt the authenticity of the documentation that she submitted. Rather, the Officer’s notes recorded in the [NAME] are clear that Ms. [APPELLANT] failed to provide the required documentation. The Officer did not have any “concerns” with the documents; they noted their absence (insufficient documentation to demonstrate financial establishment to support her stated purpose of travel). The Officer simply noted that Ms. [APPELLANT] did not meet the statutory eligibility requirements based on the application before them. As is it stated in [NAME] , the duty of procedural fairness is not triggered by an applicant’s failure to present sufficient evidence: [APPELLANT] at para 26. [ 21 ] The second issue with Ms. [APPELLANT]’s argument is that the Officer had no obligation to seek to clarify a deficient application, to reach out and make the applicant’s case, or to apprise her of their concerns relating to whether the requirements set out in the legislation have been met: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 483 at paras 40-46; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 381 at para 32; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 115 at para 46. [ 22 ] The jurisprudence of this Court is clear that there is no obligation for an officer to afford an applicant the opportunity to clarify or supplement a deficient work permit application or to provide them with a “running score” of the weaknesses in their application: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 1183 at para 29, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 665. It was Ms. [APPELLANT]’s responsibility to put her best case forward and the Officer was under no duty to raise concerns arising from the legislative requirements before rendering the Decision: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 1247 at paras 83-85; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1184 at paras 22-23. [ 23 ] I find no breach of procedural fairness in the current circumstances where the onus was not on the Officer to take additional steps to seek out additional documents to address or satisfy outstanding concerns: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 275 at para 16 . C. Was the Officer’s Decision refusing Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit unreasonable? [ 24 ] First, Ms. [APPELLANT] submits the Officer made a factual error in the Decision, which states that “the compensation (monetary or other) indicated in your job offer and your assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for yourself […]” [Emphasis added]. The same factual error appears in the [NAME] notes where the Officer noted: “The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant […]” [Emphasis added]. At the hearing, Ms. [APPELLANT] ’s counsel explained that no job offer was included with her application as she was not applying on the basis of her own Canadian job offer; she was applying for an open spousal work permit based on her spouse’s Canadian employment.

Accordingly, Ms. [APPELLANT] submits the Decision is unreasonable. [ 25 ] While I agree with Ms. [APPELLANT] that this is an error made by the Officer, I am not persuaded that this error is sufficient to render the Decision as a whole unreasonable: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 576 at para 28; [NAME] at para 100. As will be explained below, the determinative issue in this case is that Ms. [APPELLANT] applied for a spousal work permit based on her spouse having Canadian employment and she failed to include proof of such in her application. [ 26 ] Second, Ms. [APPELLANT] submits that the Decision lacks transparency and justification, making it difficult to comprehend the rationale behind the refusal. While the obligation on an officer to give reasons in this context is minimal, decisions must not only be justifiable; they must be justified: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 596 [ [NAME] ] at para 17; [NAME] at paras 86, 96. As Justice McHaffie held in [NAME] “[t]he Court cannot be left to speculate as to the reasons for a decision or attempt to fill in those reasons on behalf of a decision-maker where they are not clear from the decision read in light of the record” . [ 27 ] Relatedly, Ms. [APPELLANT] also submits the Officer relied solely on template language in both the refusal letter and the [NAME] notes and relies on [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2019 FC 1245 [ [NAME] ] where Justice Pamel commented on the use of template language in [NAME]’ decisions: [23] However, when using templates, [NAME] should bring the necessary modifications or render reasons that would indicate their thought process in an intelligible manner, and address evidence that may contradict important findings of fact. In this case, by simply stating objective determinations, the [NAME] officer did not establish the basis for understanding how he interpreted the evidence to arrive at his decision. [NAME] at para 23. [ 28 ] While the reasons are short, in my view, they are sufficient to understand the Officer’s reasoning on at least one determinative element of this application, when read in light of the record before the Officer. This determinative element relates to Ms. [APPELLANT]’s requirement to demonstrate that her spouse is employed in Canada and where the Officer determined that the “Applicant [failed] to satisfy me that HOF [Head of Family] is currently employed or will be employed in Canada” . This element of the Decision is a modification to the template language that indicates the Officer’s thought process and the basis for how they interpreted the evidence to arrive at its Decision. I am not left speculating as to the reasons for the Decision. [ 29 ] As the Minister points out, Ms. [APPELLANT] sought a work permit on the basis that her spouse was authorized to work in Canada. Where an applicant’s spouse is the holder of an open work permit, which is the case here, the Program Delivery Instructions states the following: Therefore, the family member applicant must also provide the following: - a letter from the principal foreign national's [NAME] confirming employment and their occupation as well as the NOC, with a description of duties or a copy of their employment offer or contract; - evidence that the principal foreign national is employed in a TEER category 0,1, 2 or 3 occupation at the time of the family member's work permit application submission until a decision on the application is rendered . C41 Program Delivery Instructions, [NAME] at para 3, Exhibit “B” [Emphasis in original] [ 30 ] Since Ms. [APPELLANT] applied for a spousal work permit, she was required to demonstrate that her spouse was employed in Canada. I agree with the Minister who posits that ultimately, Ms. [APPELLANT] sought a work permit predicated on her husband’s employment in Canada but failed to provide evidence of that employment. The Officer reasoned that Ms. [APPELLANT] “fai[led] to satisfy me that HOF is currently employed or will be employed in Canada.” When read in light of the record before the Officer where no evidence was submitted by Ms. [APPELLANT] to confirm her husband’s employment in Canada, I find the Officer’s finding is reasonable. This is especially clear in light of Ms. [APPELLANT]’s admission that “certain documents had not been included in her original application. Based on the affidavit, the omitted materials are as follows: the [COMPANY] records, the spouse’s employment letter, and the pay stubs” : Applicant’s Further Memorandum of Argument at para 9. Based on this reason alone, this application for judicial review should be dismissed. [ 31 ] In my view, the reasons provided by the Officer are reasonable and invite deference from this Court: [NAME] at para 85 , given the broad discretion enjoyed by the Officer: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 240 at para 8; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 886 at para 7.

V. Conclusion [ 32 ] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. [ADDRESS] finds no fatal flaw or sufficiently serious shortcoming in the Decision to render it unreasonable. It is not the Court’s role to reweigh the evidence or to remake the Decision. The role of the Court is to determine whether the Officer’s Decision was reasonable. [ 33 ] Neither party raised a serious question of general importance for certification, and I find that none arises in the circumstances of this matter.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7115-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7115-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [APPELLANT], ON For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TORONTO, ON For The Respondent