Federal Court Grants Judicial Review Due to Procedural Unfairness

Date: 20260529 Docket: IMM-18495-24 Citation: 2026 FC 697 Ottawa, Ontario, May 29, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant is a citizen of China who applied for a work permit in Canada. The visa officer reviewing her file, and the subsequent Minister’s Delegate (together referred to as the “Officer” ) had refused the Applicant’s application on the basis that she was inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation under subsection 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001 c 27 [ IRPA ]. The Officer found that she misrepresented material facts, namely that she was unable to perform the duties the Canadian job would require and that her job offer was not genuine. The Applicant seeks to judicially review the Officer’s decision (Decision). For the following reasons, I conclude that the Decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. [ 2 ] On October 14, 2021, the Applicant received a job offer from [NAME], a [NAME] in Saskatoon (the Employer), to work as an office manager. On January 2, 2022, the Applicant received a nomination for [NAME] residence under the [NAME], instructing her to apply for [NAME] residence through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). She also received a work permit support letter, which was issued on the basis that she was urgently required to begin her employment with the Employer. [ 3 ] The Respondent states that the Applicant initially applied for a work permit on June 21, 2022 and applied for [NAME] residence on January 28, 2022. Her initial work permit application was refused on August 25, 2022, on the basis that she did not demonstrate she could perform the work sought. On the current work permit application submitted September 27, 2023, the Applicant disclosed this previous refusal. [ 4 ] By letter dated April 30, 2024, the Officer invited the Applicant for an interview and asked her to take a number of documents. The requested documents included 3 recent pay slips from her [NAME], a copy of her bank statement for the previous six months showing her payroll, and relevant tax and social insurance contributions, and all correspondence between her and the [NAME]. The Applicant took all the requested documents with her to the interview dated May 8, 2024. At the time of the interview, the Applicant was working for her [NAME], a [COMPANY], for five years. The Canadian job offer was for her to work as an office manager at a [NAME]. [ 5 ] The Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant could not perform her duties at the [NAME] was based on the following interview exchange: • Q: why not Australia , closer to home? •A: But the immigration policy is so limited. • Q: How would you do this if you don’t know car repairs? • A: I am prepared to take online courses to develop . But I think its not a big challenge for me. • Q: One of the duty is to evaluate performance., how do you evaluate performance of car repairman? • A: I don’t know. • Q: So this was not discussed at the interview? • A: it was discussed, but I think it was not that important in the interview. • Q: Another task is to train staff, how would you do this? • A: I don’t need to train the repairman, just the staff in my dept. • Q: Do you have anything else to add to help me make my decision? • A: I don’t know, I just did the application according to the immigration law and [NAME], so I don’t know, I found the job, I talked to them, which meets the requirements of the government, it’s legal. Maybe there are some questions, but everything is legal. Regarding the employer, if you have concerns, this is not decided by me. I did all this based on the regulations, and this is legal. I hope there will be no negative effect. I have the PNP, my documents are genuine. [ 6 ] The Officer’s conclusion that the job offer was not genuine was based on the following findings, as summarized in the Officer’s [NAME] notes: Docs received and reviewed. The employer did not submit an org chart for the company, or the paystub of the person currently occupying the position of Office Manager, as was requested. I note that the T4 Summary of remuneration paid for the company in 2023 shows that one (1) T4 was produced for that year, for a total amount of CAD $17,568 in wages paid that year. I further note that the [NAME] was offered an hourly rate of 23$. If the [NAME] was to work 52 weeks a year for 40 hours a week, as per the contract that is currently offered, their salary would be around $47,840, which would be more than double all wages being paid by that company last year. Based on submissions, including payroll and wages information, it does not appear that potential employer has the financial capacity to pay for the hourly rate offered to [NAME] as required by R200(5)(c). I am therefore not satisfied on balance that this is a genuine job offer.

II. Legal Framework [ 7 ] IRPA applies to this case. Where [NAME] nationals apply for visas, subsection 11(1) creates an examination requirement, and subsection 16(1) establishes an obligation for applicants to answer truthfully all questions in an examination : Application before entering Canada 11 (1) A [NAME] must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the [NAME] is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. […] Visa et documents 11 (1) [NAME] doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa 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 — answer truthfully 16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires. […] Obligation du [NAME] 16 (1) L’auteur d’une demande au titre de la présente loi doit répondre véridiquement aux questions qui lui sont posées lors du contrôle, donner les renseignements et tous éléments de preuve pertinents et présenter les visa et documents requis. […] [ 8 ] Under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA, a person is inadmissible to Canada if he or she “withholds material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration” of the Act: Misrepresentation 40 (1) [NAME] or a [NAME] is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act; […] Fausses déclarations 40 (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour fausses déclarations les faits suivants : a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi; […]

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 9 ] The Applicant raises two issues, the reasonableness of the Decision and whether it was reached in a procedurally fair manner. [ 10 ] Reasonableness review is a deferential and disciplined evaluation of whether an administrative decision is transparent, intelligible and justified: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], 2019 SCC 65 , at paras 12-13 and 15 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 , at paras 8, 63 [ [NAME] ]. [ 11 ] I have started by reading the reasons of the decision-maker in conjunction with the record that was before them holistically and contextually. As the reviewing judge, I have focused on the decision-maker’s reasoning process ( [NAME] at paras 83–84, 87). I have not considered whether the decision-maker’s decision was correct, or what I would do if I were deciding the matter itself: [NAME] , at para 83; Canada (Justice) v DV,  2022 FCA 181 at paras 15, 23. It is not this Court’s role to reweigh the evidence: ( [NAME] at para 125). [ 12 ] A reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision-maker ([NAME] at paras 85, 91–97, 103, 105–106, 194; Canada Post Corp v [NAME], 2019 SCC 67 at paras 2, 28–33, 61; [NAME] at paras 8, 59–61, 66). For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish that the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. [ 13 ] With respect to the issue of procedural fairness, the standard of review is akin to correctness. The focus of this Court is on whether or not the procedure allowed the Applicant to know the case to meet and have a full and fair opportunity to respond: [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-56.

IV. Analysis A. The Officer’s decision was reached unfairly [ 14 ] The Applicant does not take issue with the fact that an accurate representation of her ability to perform her duties is material to the determination of her work permit application. However, she objects to the lack of sufficient notice, either prior to the interview in the letter, or during the interview. She submits that she took all the requested documents with her at the interview, and when asked questions, she truthfully answered what she knew, what she needed to learn once she was on the job, and what she did not know. Most importantly, she argues that it was only at the end of the interview that the Officer communicated their concerns. They did not communicate their concerns to solicit answers and to allow the Applicant to meaningfully respond. Rather, they communicated a summary of their findings or impression. Here is a copy of the [NAME] notes at their very end of the interview, when the Officer raised their concerns with the Applicant’s truthfulness for the first time: Q. At this point I have to tell you that I have concerns: 1- that you are not able to perform the work you are seeking -You have worked in an office environment in the past, but the duties listed here are quite specific to the car repair industry. Not only you do not have the knowledge, but you don’t seem to have discussed this at the interview, or prepared to do these tasks. 2- That the job offer is not genuine - the hiring process you described, and the docs you brought today, are not typical in Canada. You were hired very quickly, without a reference check, and offered [NAME] residence. The employer said he needs your services, however you had your interview in Oct 2021, we are now May 2024 and it’s unclear why they have not been able to hire anyone since then. -as mentioned before, open source search raises concerns about their ability to pay and fulfill the contract they are offering you. Q. Do you have anything else to add to help me make my decision? A. I don’t know, I just did the application according to the immigration law and [NAME], so I don’t know, I found the job, I talked to them, which meets the requirements of the government, it’s legal. Maybe there are some questions, but everything is legal. Regarding the employer, if you have concerns, this is not decided by me. I did all this based on the regulations, and this is legal. I hope there will be no negative effect. I have the PNP, my documents are genuine. THANKED THE [NAME] FOR THEIR TIME. TOLD THEM I WILL REVIEW THE APP, ASK MORE DOCS FROM THE EMPLOYER, AND THEY SHOULD GET AN ANSWER IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. END TIME: 16:00 [ 15 ] I agree with the Applicant that by the time the Officer raised their concerns with the Applicant’s abilities to perform the job, they did not put it in the form of a question. They also raised multiple issues, notably, concerns with the Employer’s behaviour, about which the Applicant could not reasonably comment. For instance, the Officer asked why the employer had not hired anyone else in the intervening 2.5 years. Then, the Officer asked a general question on what the Applicant wanted to add, and the Applicant repeated the steps they took to find the employer and get the job offer. [ 16 ] Ultimately, the Employer did not provide the Officer with all the requested documents, such as an organizational chart. The Officer based the Decision on their subjective expectations of what the Applicant should have been able to do, but also on the insufficiency of the Employer’s documents, over which the Applicant had no control. The April 30, 2024 letter had not asked the Applicant to bring any documents pertaining to the Employer, except for the communication between them and the Applicant. When the Applicant was nowhere near arriving in Canada, it is hard to understand the relevance of the lack of a continued communication between the two without further analysis. [ 17 ] After the interview, the Officer reached out to the Employer for additional documents, and the Employer only partially complied with the request. Again, the Applicant had no control over the Employer’s behaviour and actions. Here are the Officer’s notes that they sent to a Minister’s Delegate for a final determination: *OFFICER REVIEW** Docs received and reviewed. The employer did not submit an org chart for the company, or the paystub of the person currently occupying the position of Office Manager, as was requested. I note that the T4 Summary of remuneration paid for the company in 2023 shows that one (1) T4 was produced for that year, for a total amount of CAD $17,568 in wages paid that year. I further note that the [NAME] was offered an hourly rate of 23$. If the [NAME] was to work 52 weeks a year for 40 hours a week, as per the contract that is currently offered, their salary would be around $47,840, which would be more than double all wages being paid by that company last year. Based on submissions, including payroll and wages information, it does not appear that potential employer has the financial capacity to pay for the hourly rate offered to [NAME] as required by R200(5)(c). I am therefore not satisfied on balance that this is a genuine job offer. MISREPRESENTATION Additionally, after reviewing all submissions and interview notes, I recommend a finding for misrepresentation against the applicant. The applicant was interviewed on 08-MAY-2024 in Shanghai. Applicant was asked to be truthful during the interview, and has been given the opportunity to respond to concerns about possible misrepresentation several times during the interview. Her responses did not alleviate my concerns. The applicant states she had an interview with this company in October 2021, and was unable to explain clearly why the process took so long before she submitted her work permit application, or why the employer was unable to fill in the gap for over 2,5 years. [NAME] and employer had very limited communication during that period of time. [NAME] was overall evasive and not credible throughout the interview. Although she had memorized the list of tasks she would be asked to perform in Canada, when I asked her what it meant, she was unable to explain them. For example, the [NAME]'s job offer is listing as duties to evaluate performance. I asked her how she would do this in the context of a [NAME], she replied she did not know. I asked if this was discussed at the interview, and she said yes, however she did not think it was an important element. Moreover, several responses the applicant gave at the interview have been clearly contradicted by employer docs received. For instance, part of required duties on the job offer was listed as: delegating work, setting work priorities, coordinating the procedures, manage the overall operations. She also explained she would be training new staff. However, as seen above, there was a single employee working for this company in 2023, and based on the salary, it seems to have been part-time employment. I recommend a finding for misrepresentation under section A40 of the Act, as the [NAME] provided inconsistent and contradicting information on elements that are material to the assessment of the eligibility and admissibility, which could have induced an error in the administration of the Act. Sent to delegated officer for decision. Upon reviewing the above recommendation, [NAME] made the following findings, as reflected in the [NAME] notes: I am now the delegated authority for this file. [NAME] was provided with opportunities to respond to my concerns during the interview, and was provided an additional opportunity to send documents after the interview. Following the review of all submissions and interview notes, I am satisfied that [NAME] has provided a fraudulent offer of employment. This misrepresentation could have induced an error in the administration of the act in the assessment of [NAME]'s eligibility. Refused A40 DMPM [ 18 ] [NAME] found that the Applicant had misrepresented under IRPA. They based their finding of misrepresentation mainly on the Applicant’s inability to provide certain pieces of information about the job offer. However, the Employer had issued it, and the Applicant could not have reasonably spoken to its shortcomings without proper notice and opportunity. More importantly, the Applicant never learned until the end of the interview that she needed to provide more documentation or context to prove the genuineness of the employment offer and was therefore not given a fair opportunity to respond to the concern that ultimately became determinative to the Decision and especially to the misrepresentation finding. However, neither the Visa Officer nor [NAME] issued any Procedural Fairness Letters before recommending and/or finalizing the misrepresentation findings against the Applicant. [ 19 ] Misrepresentation findings can lead to significant consequences. These consequences are significant to the Applicant. Misrepresentation findings “attract a higher level of procedural fairness because a finding of misrepresentation precludes [NAME] from re-applying for a five-year period” and they “may also reflect on [NAME]’s character” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1941 at para 30 [ [NAME] ], citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 171 at paras 26–27 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 599 at para 23; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1649 at para 18). Given the stakes of a potential misrepresentation finding, the decision-maker’s reasons must reflect the stakes for the Decision and must do so from the affected individual’s perspective ( [NAME] at para 27, citing [NAME] at para 133). [ 20 ] In this case, a significant part of the basis for the misrepresentation finding was based on documents that only the Employer could have provided. The Applicant was not privy to them. This distinguishes the misrepresentation finding in this case from the finding in the cases the Respondent relied on, namely [NAME] and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1941 [ [NAME] ]. [ 21 ] In [NAME] , the interview convocation letter “requested documentation to verify the legitimacy of the Applicant’s educational credentials” (para 32). Furthermore, and as here, the applicant in [NAME] was given the opportunity to address the officer’s concerns in the interview. Justice Zinn found that the “combination of the interview notice, and the interview itself ensured that the Applicant was aware of the case to meet and had the opportunity to meet it” ( [NAME] at para 32). In [NAME] , the procedural safeguards “exceeded the procedural safeguards upheld in [NAME] ” (para 33). The applicant in [NAME] was allowed to make post-interview submissions, which were then reviewed by the officer (para 33). [ 22 ] In these cases, the concerns were about the legitimacy of the Applicant’s educational credentials, documents and the applicants’ background. They had control over this information. However, in this case, the concern was with the Employer and the issued job offer, as well as with factors such as the absence of an organizational chart, employees’ low salaries, and specific job duties which would better be known after [NAME] started. The Officer in this case also did not provide the Applicant with a procedural fairness letter. Here, the Officer only notified the Applicant of their general concerns in the April 30, 2024 letter, and of more specific concerns at the end of the interview. [ 23 ] [NAME] cannot be expected to bear the significant consequence of a misrepresentation finding without a meaningful opportunity to respond ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 904 at paras 24–25 and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 222 at para 17). The Officer and Minister’s Delegate’s failure to provide the Applicant a full and fair opportunity to respond to their concerns about the Employer, including on the genuineness of the job offer, amounts to a breach of procedural fairness that vitiates the Decision. [ 24 ] Because of the breach of procedural fairness, the decision to refuse the work permit on the basis of misrepresentation is set aside. I therefore need not engage with the Applicant’s reasonableness arguments. Suffice to say that an officer’s subjective beliefs, such as concluding that the skills of a [COMPANY] manager do not transfer to a different type of business, and amount to misrepresentation, would require a clear justification for the source of those assumptions and impressions. At the very least, fairness requires that the Applicant have a fair opportunity to challenge those assumptions, and a reasonable decision would require that the basis of those assumptions be articulated.

V. Conclusion [ 25 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [ 26 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification. I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-18495-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The Judicial Review is granted and is sent back to the Respondent to be decided by a different Officer. There is no question to be certified. blank "Negar Azmudeh" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-18495-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 5, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: AZMUDEH J. DATED: May 29, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent