Federal Court Dismisses Work Permit Application Due to Deadline Miss

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260630 [NAME] : IMM-8120-25 Citation: 2026 FC 883 Ottawa, Ontario , June 30, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of an Immigration Officer’s refusal of her work permit application. Ms. [APPELLANT] is a citizen of Bangladesh. She applied for an open work permit as the spouse of a foreign worker. She was sponsored by her husband, who is currently employed in Canada. [ 2 ] The central issue is whether Ms. [APPELLANT] filed her work permit application before the deadline for assessment under the previous eligibility requirements. [ 3 ] On January 21, 2025, changes came into effect, which limited foreign nationals who can sponsor spousal work permits to those employed in certain positions. The cutoff for assessment under the pre-January 21, 2025 requirements was January 21, 2025 at 5:00 UTC. [ 4 ] Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application was denied. The Officer found that Ms. [APPELLANT] submitted her application after the January 21, 2025 at 5:00 UTC cutoff, and therefore the new requirements applied. Under the new requirements, Ms. [APPELLANT]’s husband was unable to sponsor her, because his job position as a [NAME] [COMPANY] made him ineligible to sponsor a spousal open work permit.

I. Issue [ 5 ] The only issue on this judicial review application is if the Officer’s decision, that her work permit application was not filed by the deadline, is both reasonable and procedurally fair.

II. Analysis [ 6 ] The Applicant’s primary argument is that her application should have been assessed based on the old requirements, because she submitted her application before the cutoff date. [ 7 ] At the hearing, Ms. [APPELLANT]’s legal counsel sought to introduce evidence of an official receipt from the [NAME] confirming a payment of $655.00 made on 2025-01-20 at 19:51:19 EST. Ms. [APPELLANT] says this was the payment for her application. The Respondent objects to the Court considering this new evidence as it was not provided prior to the hearing and it is not contained in the Certified Tribunal Record. [ 8 ] I find this receipt relates to procedural fairness, and it is therefore admissible on judicial review ( Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 at para 20). I will thus consider the receipt, however it does not assist the Applicant. The receipt confirms that a payment was made, however the receipt does not confirm when Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit application was filed. The only evidence confirming when the Application was filed are the [NAME]. The first entry, in relation to Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application, is dated “2025/01/21 10:10:59 PM” . [ 9 ] The Respondent filed the Affidavit of [RESPONDENT], attaching [NAME] ([NAME]) webpages announcing the changes to the open work permit program and confirming the date and time when the new program would be implemented. The relevant information on the [NAME] website states as follows: As of January 21, 2025, at 5:00 UTC, the eligibility requirements have changed for open work permits for family members of workers. If you applied before January 21, 2025: • We’ll continue to process all applications that were received before January 21, 2025. o Applications received before January 21, 2025 will be processed under the previous eligibility criteria. [ 10 ] Exhibit D to the Bruchet Affidavit explains as follows on deadlines: ˜ If you apply online: You must submit your application before midnight Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day your work permit expires. ¡ Our online application system uses UTC. ¡ Make sure you know the difference between your local time and UTC. [ 11 ] Unfortunately for Ms. [APPELLANT], the evidence shows that her online application was not received before the deadline. There is therefore no basis for the Court to interfere with the Officer’s decision.

III. Conclusion [ 12 ] This judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-8120-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-8120-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 24, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: June 30, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Calgary, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT