Federal Court Grants Judicial Review for Work Permit Application

Date: 20260522 [NAME] : IMM-19903-24 Citation: 2026 FC 658 Toronto, Ontario , May 22, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is a judicial review of a third work permit refusal. The Respondent concedes that the judicial review should be granted but disagrees with the Applicant’s request for a directed verdict. [ 2 ] The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the [NAME] [[NAME]] Officer’s decision, dated October 3, 2024, refusing his work permit application, which was supported by a labour market impact assessment (LMIA). The Officer denied the Applicant’s application, based, in part, on a finding that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. [ 3 ] I agree with the parties that this judicial review should be granted. The only issue is if the Court should grant the directed verdict requested by the Applicant and declare that he qualifies for the work permit.

I. Analysis [ 4 ] Typically, on granting a judicial review, the Court remits the case for redetermination by a different decision maker ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 140-141 [ Vavilov ]). This approach is consistent with Parliament’s choice for the administrative decision maker to decide the issue and recognizes the decision maker’s expertise in the subject matter. [ 5 ] Cases where the Court decides the matter, rather than remitting it, are exceptional ( Vavilov at paras 141-142) and the Court should only decide issues in the “clearest of circumstances” ( Canada (Attorney General) v [COMPANY] , 2020 FCA 171 at para 90). Such clearest of cases includes circumstances where the result on redetermination would be inevitable ( Vavilov at para 142). In exercising its discretion to decide an issue, the Court may also consider other factors, such as concern for delay, fairness to the parties, the urgency in providing a resolution to the dispute, and the nature of the administrative regime ( Vavilov at para 142). [ 6 ] In my view, this is not an appropriate case for the Court to decide if the Applicant is entitled to the work permit he seeks. The outcome of a redetermination is not inevitable, as work permit decisions are fact-driven and discretionary, and the underlying decision was unreasonable for a failure to consider certain factors. [ 7 ] Alternatively, the Applicant requests that the application be remitted with directions from the Court. Like a directed verdict, the Court providing additional directions for redetermination is exceptional relief ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2014 FCA 95 at paras 16-17; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 1065 at para 78). [ 8 ] Specifically, the Applicant seeks similar relief to that granted in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 333 [ [NAME] ], where a visitor visa was refused three times. The [NAME] sought a visa to visit their children who were studying in Canada. Justice Grant ordered that the reconsideration happen on an expediated basis and gave the applicants 30 days to provide additional documentation in support of their application. Finally, Justice Grant ordered $1,000.00 in costs to the applicant. [ 9 ] [NAME] concerned a visitor visa, whereas this case involves a work permit and therefore engages different considerations. In this case, the work permit application was supported by an LMIA that expired nearly two years ago. Because an LMIA assesses whether hiring a foreign worker would have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on the local labour market, relying on information that is two years old would undermine that purpose. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Court to “give directions” on the reconsideration of the Applicant’s work permit application. [ 10 ] Finally, the Applicant asks the Court to direct that the reconsideration of his application be given priority. In oral submissions, counsel for the Respondent advised that [NAME] already treats all redeterminations as a priority, making such a direction unnecessary.

II. Conclusion [ 11 ] This judicial review is granted. The matter shall be reconsidered by a different decision maker. Prior to the redetermination, the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of his application.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-19903-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is granted. The decision of the Officer dated October 3, 2024, is set aside and the matter is returned for redetermination by a different officer. Prior to the redetermination, the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation. No costs are awarded. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-19903-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: april 22, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: May 22, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], British Columbia FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT