Federal Court Grants LMIA Refusal Judicial Review

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260521 Docket: IMM-19515-24 Citation: 2026 FC 637 Ottawa, Ontario, May 21, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and [RESPONDENT]) Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [APPELLANT]. (the Applicant or [APPELLANT]) is engaged in the business of long-haul trucking in British Columbia. They applied to the Respondent for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to hire eight temporary foreign workers as truck drivers. The [NAME] officer assigned to the case (Officer) refused the LMIA. The Applicant seeks the judicial review of the refusal (Decision). [ 2 ] The Officer partly based their refusal on the fact that [APPELLANT] only owned four trucks, three of which were not insured to drive on a motorway, and that they did not have current, valid, National Safety Certificates (NSC) because they utilized the NSC of another company [NAME] [APPELLANT] ([COMPANY]), another company owned by [APPELLANT]’s owner. The Officer also noted that the majority of the trucks owned by the [COMPANY] are owned by another company, [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]). The Officer appears to have accepted that [COMPANY] is owned by the father of the principal owner of [APPELLANT] and the [COMPANY]. [APPELLANT], the [COMPANY] and [COMPANY] collectively own nine trucks and [APPELLANT] had applied for eight LMIAs. The processing fees for each of the LMIAs was $1,000. [ 3 ] The Officer also partly based their decision on the fact that the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Transportation records contained different information on the ownership of trucks operated by the [COMPANY]. However, the Applicant had provided correspondence from BC’s Ministry of Transportation that their records were sometimes not updated in a timely manner and that the ownership documents issued by the [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) provided correct and updated information. The Applicant had provided unequivocal evidence of the [COMPANY]’s ownership of the trucks through [COMPANY] documents. The Officer gave a 24-hour deadline to the Applicant to get correct matching records from the Minister of Transportation, and when the Applicant did not, they refused the application. The Officer did not engage with the Ministry’s letter confirming the existence of errors on their record and the supremacy of [COMPANY] documentation.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 4 ] The only issue before me is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable. [ 5 ] 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] ]. [ 6 ] 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 [NAME],  2022 FCA 181 at paras 15, 23. It is not this Court’s role to reweigh the evidence: ( [NAME] at para 125). [ 7 ] 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; [COMPANY] 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.

III. Analysis A. The Officer’s decision is unreasonable [ 8 ] The Officer refused the LMIA under four criteria under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ]. First, under paragraphs 200(5)(a)(b)(c) of the IRPR, the Officer found that the job offer was not genuine. Second, under subsection 203(3) of the IRPR, the Officer concluded that the employment of the foreign nationals was unlikely to have a positive effect on the labour market. [ 9 ] The Officer’s reasons read like a long logbook that have documented their communication with the Applicant, the Applicant’s responses, and some of their concerns, with little to no analysis. Where documents on the record addressed the Officer’s concerns, the reasons do not reflect them. [ 10 ] For example, it appears that the Officer had concerns about the Applicant’s motives for wanting to hire eight drivers when [APPELLANT] owned fewer trucks, most of which had no insurance. However, the Applicant had provided a letter from the [COMPANY] that showed it had authorized [APPELLANT] to use their trucks. Similarly, the Officer ignored evidence by the Minister of Transportation of British Columbia indicating that ownership is best documented by [COMPANY] records. The Officer’s ignorance of material evidence leaves unexplained holes in the Reasons. [ 11 ] The Officer documented their thoughts without analysis when they took issue with the uninsured trucks. They note that the Applicant had explained that the trucks were uninsured due to a lack of drivers, but it remains unclear whether they accepted the Applicant’s explanation, and if not, on what basis. The Applicant’s documents demonstrated that the annual cost of insurance for their drivable truck was over $18,000 as opposed to approximately $235 for the trucks in storage. With this evidence and the Officer’s lack of analysis, it is hard to understand why the Officer needed to see the trucks insured before having anyone driving them. [ 12 ] On the one hand, the Officer seems to have accepted the relationship between [APPELLANT], the [COMPANY] and [COMPANY]. The Officer wrote that: “The provided Carrier Profile does not confirm the operated trucks belong to the employer, [APPELLANT]., or [COMPANY]., a company owned by the employer as well” [ 13 ] On the other hand, it appears that the reason for the refusal was that [APPELLANT] owned few trucks. The Officer does not explain why “ownership” per se matters when the evidence showed that [APPELLANT] had authorized access to 9 trucks while waiting for 8 LMIAs. The Officer did not explain why they could not consider the [COMPANY] records, or why they should disregard the Minister of Transportation’s letter. [ 14 ] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has highlighted in [NAME] , and has further emphasized in [NAME] and [NAME] the importance of the fact that reasons reflect the impact to the affected individuals ( [NAME] at para 133; [NAME] at para 76; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 at paras 115–119 [ [NAME] ]). [ 15 ] In this case, the Officer’s reasons are completely silent on the impact of their decision on the Applicant’s business at a significant cost. Their reasons are not responsive to the totality of the evidence before them, and lack transparency, intelligibility and justification.

IV. Conclusion [ 16 ] The Officer’s decision lacks the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The application for judicial review is therefore granted. [ 17 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification. I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-19515-24 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-19515-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] V. [RESPONDENT]) PLACE OF HEARING: [APPELLANT] OF HEARING: MAY 5, 2026

REASONS FOR [NAME] AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: MAY 21, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY], [NAME] [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Gatineau, Quebec For The Respondent