Federal Court Grants Judicial Review in Work Permit Case

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260610 Docket: IMM-7095-25 Citation: 2026 FC 767 Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [APPELLANT], a citizen of China, is seeking judicial review of a decision dated March 21, 2025 [Decision] of an Officer of the [RESPONDENT], [NAME] [IRCC] refusing his application for a temporary resident work permit under the [NAME]. The Officer was not satisfied that Mr. [RESPONDENT] met the requirements of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the [RESPONDENT] Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] because he was not able to demonstrate that he will be able to adequately perform the work sought in the province of Quebec, notably by demonstrating he had French language skills. [ 2 ] Mr. [NAME] argues that the Decision is unreasonable and submits that the Officer does not have the discretion to override the decision of an employer who selected him to fill the position and who indicated in the Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA] application that only English language skills were required for the position. [ 3 ] The Respondent, the Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT] [Minister], argues that Mr. [RESPONDENT] has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s Decision is unreasonable. The Minister argues that the Officer was not bound by the information in the LMIA and has wide discretion in assessing whether an applicant’s language skills are sufficient to perform the work sought in Canada. The Minister argues that the Officer considered the fact that the language requirements in the LMIA are listed as English but concluded from the evidence before them that the French language proficiency was also necessary to adequately perform the proposed work. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted.

II. Facts [ 5 ] Mr. [NAME] is a citizen of China. He completed a Mechanical Engineering degree at [COMPANY] in the United States in 2017 and has previous work experience as a Purchasing and Ordering Agent in Shanghai from 2018 to 2019. [ 6 ] [NAME] (Québec) [COMPANY] [[NAME]] is a licensed marijuana producer that owns and operates two facilities in the province of Quebec. [ 7 ] On September 5, 2024, [NAME] submitted a LMIA application to hire a [NAME] for a temporary period of 36 months for the position of Procurement and Purchasing Agent. Mr. [NAME] was designated as the temporary [NAME] worker in the LMIA application, which specified only English as a written and oral language requirement for the position. [ 8 ] On October 1, 2024, the [NAME] approved the LMIA application. [ 9 ] On October 7, 2024, Mr. [NAME] received a confirmation of employment and employment offer written in French. [ 10 ] On November 12, 2024, Mr. [NAME] applied to the [NAME] in New York, [RESPONDENT], to obtain a work permit following receipt of the employment confirmation and employment offer as Procurement and Purchasing Agent with [NAME].

III. Decision Under Judicial Review [ 11 ] By refusal letter dated March 21, 2025, Mr. [NAME] application for a temporary resident work permit was denied. The Officer noted that they were not satisfied that Mr. [NAME] met the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. The Officer explained the application was refused on the ground that Mr. [NAME] was not able to demonstrate that he will be able to adequately perform the work sought. [ 12 ] The Officer’s Decision is further explained in the [NAME] [[NAME]] notes dated March 21, 2025, which form part of the Decision, as per [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 44, and are reproduced below: I have reviewed the application. Based on the documentation submitted, I am not satisfied that the applicant will be able to adequately perform the proposed work given their: -Insufficient ability in the language of the proposed employment: applicant submitted proof of English language but no proof of FR on file. Employment is in [NAME], and while language requirements in LMIA are listed as EN, the job offer and all documents from employer are written in French. Moreover, the description of duties from the employment offer include "Collaborer avec les differents services de l'entreprise," and other internal/external lia[i]son functions. Open data search show the employer - [NAME] - operates in French and is located in [NAME]. Therefore, a professional level of French would be necessary to adequately perform this work. I am not satisfied the applicant has required language skills. 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.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] The Minister raises a preliminary issue: Is the new evidence submitted by [NAME] admissible before the Federal Court? [ 14 ] On judicial review before this Court, [NAME] only raises one issue with the Officer’s Decision: Is the Officer's Decision to refuse Mr. [NAME] work permit unreasonable? [ 15 ] The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ] at paras 10, 25. To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. For the reviewing court to intervene, the party challenging the decision must satisfy the court that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and that the alleged flaws “must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision” : [NAME] at para 100. [ 16 ] [ADDRESS] must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; a decision may be unreasonable, however, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” : [NAME] at paras 125-126.

V. Analysis A. Applicable Principles of [RESPONDENT] [ 17 ] The most fundamental principle of [RESPONDENT] law is that [NAME] nationals have no unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]), 2005 SCC 51 at para 46, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Employment and [RESPONDENT]) , 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733. [ 18 ] 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(3)(a) of the IRPR. These provisions read respectively as follows: 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) L’étranger 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 l’étranger n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi. Obligation on entry 20 (1) [NAME], other than a [NAME] 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 visa 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) L’étranger 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 visa 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 [NAME] 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 [NAME] 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 l’étranger qui fait la demande préalablement à son entrée au Canada, l’agent délivre un permis de travail à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments ci-après sont établis (…) Exceptions (3) An officer shall not issue a work permit to a [NAME] if (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the [NAME] is unable to perform the work sought; Exceptions (3) Le permis de travail ne peut être délivré à l’étranger dans les cas suivants : a) l’agent a des motifs raisonnables de croire que l’étranger est incapable d’exercer l’emploi pour lequel le permis de travail est demandé; B. Preliminary Issue – The New Evidence filed by Mr. [NAME] is Inadmissible [ 19 ] The Minister objects to the introduction of new evidence before the Court that was not before the Officer. The Applicant’s Record includes two Affidavits: Mr. [APPELLANT] [NAME] and the [NAME] of [NAME], the Vice President of Human Resources for [NAME]. In particular, the Minister refers to the information set out in paragraph 4 of Mr. [NAME] [NAME], which states that [NAME]’s suppliers are English and Chinese and thus the Procurement and Purchasing Agent position does not require someone to speak French. The Minister also objects to paragraphs 4, 6-9, 12, and 14-15 of Ms. [NAME] [NAME], which explain why speaking French is not a requirement for the job. [ 20 ] The Minister submits that this new evidence is improper and inadmissible before the Court on judicial review. The Minister relies on a number of decisions of the Federal Court that she submits have consistently held that it is not appropriate to grant judicial review based on evidence that was not before the decision-maker: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 FC 1457 at para 15, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 885 at para 27; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 1692 at para 25. However, after review, these cases stand for the proposition that this Court has consistently held that it is inappropriate to grant judicial review based upon a ground not raised before the RAD, which is not applicable here. [ 21 ] As raised to counsel at the hearing, this Court is bound by the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v [NAME] (Access Copyright) , 2012 FCA 22 [ Access Copyright ] that held that the general rule is that evidence not before the decision-maker going to the merits of the matter is not admissible in an application for judicial review before the Court: Access Copyright at para 19. However, there are a few recognized exceptions to the general rule, which the Federal Court of Appeal stated “exist only in situations where the receipt of the evidence by the Court is not inconsistent with the differing roles of the judicial review court and the administrative decision-maker” : Access Copyright at para 20. The three non-exhaustive exceptions are as follows:

1. Where the new evidence provides general background information in circumstances where that information might assist in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review but does not add new evidence on the merits;

2. Where the new evidence brings to the attention of the reviewing court procedural defects not found in the evidentiary record of the decision-maker; and 3. Where the new evidence highlights the complete absence of evidence before the decision-maker on a particular finding. Access Copyright at para 20 [ 22 ] Mr. [NAME] acknowledges that the information in his [NAME] and the [NAME] of Ms. [NAME] is new but does not explain how any of the new information objected to by the Minister satisfy any of the Access Copyright exceptions. In Reply, Mr. [NAME] simply states that he does not agree with the Minister’s objections because the new evidence was submitted in response to the Officer’s erroneous finding concerning the operating language of [NAME]. At the hearing, counsel for Mr. [COUNSEL] argued that this new evidence is being filed in response to a ground of refusal raised by the Officer that was not based on anything on the record before the IRCC, that was not brought to the attention of Mr. [NAME] until after the Decision was rendered and that this took Mr. [NAME] completely by surprise. [ 23 ] Procedural fairness is only mentioned in passing very briefly by Mr. [NAME] in his Reply to the Minister’s Memorandum of Argument and Mr. [COUNSEL] counsel confirmed to the Court during the hearing that there was no procedural fairness argument raised before the Court. Given that procedural fairness was not raised as an issue before the Court in this judicial review and arguments on the admissibility of the new evidence under the second and third Access Copyright exceptions listed above were not argued before me, I am not prepared to consider their potential applicability. [ 24 ] In any event, the new evidence clearly relates to the merits of the matter, specifically the language requirements of Mr. [NAME] prospective employment with [NAME] and whether he will be able to perform the work sought without demonstrated French language skills: Access Copyright at para 20. This falls squarely within the above-mentioned general rule of Access Copyright and makes this evidence inadmissible given that Mr. [NAME] has not demonstrated that the evidence falls within one of the above-mentioned exceptions of the Access Copyright framework. C. The Decision is Unreasonable [ 25 ] Mr. [NAME] argues the Decision is unreasonable because it is illogical for an Officer to override the decision of a Canadian company who selected him to fill the position and indicated in the LMIA that only English language skills were required for the job, which company is better suited to identify the appropriate person to fulfill the particular job requirements. Mr. [NAME] argues that the Officer does not work at [NAME] and does not possess the required knowledge and understanding of the company or of their choice of employee. Mr. [NAME] argues that by deciding as it did, the Officer infringed on the employer’s liberty to choose who they want to employ for the Procurement and Purchasing Agent position. At the hearing, Mr. [COUNSEL] counsel argued that the Court should temper the discretion the Court has previously held is afforded to the Officer. [ 26 ] I cannot agree with Mr. [NAME] arguments. [ 27 ] As submitted by the Minister, the Officer was required to conduct an independent assessment of whether the application for the temporary work permit complied with the requirements of the IRPA and IRPR and specifically, whether there were reasonable grounds to believe Mr. [NAME] was unable to perform the work. [ADDRESS] has recognized that officers have a wide discretion in assessing whether an Applicant’s language skills are sufficient to perform the work sought in Canada: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2013 FC 627 at para 17; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2015 FC 1132 [ [NAME] ] at para 8; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 777 at para 12. [ 28 ] An IRCC officer cannot be bound by a statement by the employer that French is or is not required; he cannot delegate his decision-making function to a third party such as the employer. Conversely, a statement by an applicant or employer that French is not required cannot be binding on the visa officer. The officer must carry out his own evaluation based on a weighing of all the evidence before him: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2005 FC 1378 at para 12. [ 29 ] Moreover, this Court has repeatedly held that a LMIA is not determinative of a temporary work permit application and that officers are not bound by contents of the LMIA: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 1852 at para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 1694 at para 15; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 792 at para 18; [RESPONDENT] at para 29. [ 30 ] Mr. [NAME] also argues that, although [NAME]’s office in Montreal operates in French, there is no evidence that it operates only in French and in fact many employees and clients speak English. The Minister responds that the Officer made no finding to suggest that English was not spoken or required for certain positions or that [NAME] only operates in French, as suggested by Mr. [NAME]. [ 31 ] It is important for the Court to focus in on how the Officer reached their specific finding in their Decision. The Officer’s finding is explained in the [NAME] notes, where the Officer states that “Open data search show the employer - [NAME] - operates in French and is located in [NAME]. Therefore, a professional level of French would be necessary to adequately perform this work.” [ 32 ] As I pointed out to the parties at the hearing, the [NAME] notes clearly indicate that the Officer referred to the wrong corporate name for the employer given that the correct abbreviated corporate name for Mr. [NAME] prospective employer is [NAME]. The Officer’s reference to “[NAME]” is not only incorrect but references a generic description that could be applicable to countless Canadian biotech companies. In addition, the Certified Tribunal Record does not show any evidence of the Officer’s “Open data search” that could demonstrate that they had indeed correctly searched for “[NAME].” The Certified Tribunal Record does not show what the Officer’s search entailed and what results it produced that could substantiate the finding that the employer operates in French, meaning that “a professional level of French would be necessary to adequately perform this work” . [ 33 ] The research conducted by the Officer appears from the reasons to be incorrectly based on the wrong corporate name. Despite writing in the Decision that “[b]ased on the documentation submitted” , the Officer conducted his own research outside the documentation submitted by Mr. [NAME]. And the Officer based his conclusion that “a professional level of French would be necessary to adequately perform this work” on his apparent erroneous finding that “Open data search show the employer - [NAME] - operates in French and is located in [NAME]” . [ 34 ] The [NAME] notes clearly demonstrate that the Officer conducted the wrong research and the Officer only very briefly summarized the fruits of his research. The [NAME] notes also demonstrate that the Officer’s ultimate conclusion that “a professional level of French would be necessary to adequately perform this work” is based on what was found during that incorrect research. Therefore, it is clear to me that the Officer’s finding that French language skills are required for Mr. [NAME] employment with [NAME] is unreasonable in the circumstances, and the Decision cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency: [NAME] at para 100.

VI. Conclusion [ 35 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [ADDRESS] finds the reasons provided by the Officer have a fatal flaw justifying the Court’s intervention. The matter involving Mr. [NAME] work permit application will be remitted for redetermination by a visa officer not previously involved in this matter.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7095-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted. The matter will be remitted for redetermination by an Officer of [RESPONDENT], [NAME] not previously involved in this matter. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7095-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: June 3, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 10, 2026 APPEARANCES : Me [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Applicant Me [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Me [APPELLANT], QUEBEC For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MONTREAL, QUEBEC For The Respondent