Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Denial for Start-Up Visa Applicant

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260629 Docket: IMM-7981-24 Citation: 2026 FC 872 Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant [APPELLANT] is a citizen of India. He applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa [SUV] program of the [NAME]. The [NAME] is a pathway to permanent residency, that permits applicants to apply for a work permit before their PR application is determined so that they can begin to establish the business in Canada. See this Court’s decision in [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 1130 [ [NAME] ] at paragraphs 15-22, for a summary of the [NAME]. [ 2 ] Mr. [NAME] proposed start-up involves a wellness app connected to a wearable arm band. He intends to conduct business through a corporation under the name [COMPANY], where he is the Chief Technology Officer of the corporation. [ 3 ] Not satisfied that Mr. [NAME] would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, had sufficient funds to support the stated purpose of travel or that Mr. [NAME] purpose in visiting Canada was consistent with a temporary stay, an officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada denied his work permit application [Decision]. [ 4 ] Mr. [NAME] seeks to have the Decision reviewed judicially and set aside, arguing that the work permit refusal was unreasonable. [ 5 ] Having considered the parties’ written material and oral submissions, I find that the Decision is unreasonable; the Officer failed to consider financial evidence that pointed to a different conclusion from the one they reached. For the more detailed reasons below, the judicial review application will be granted.

II. Analysis [ 6 ] A reasonable decision is one that exhibits the hallmarks of contextual justification, transparency and intelligibility. The party challenging an administrative decision has the burden of showing that it is unreasonable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 99-100. [ 7 ] Mr. [NAME] argues the Officer overlooked important evidence relating to his financial situation and unreasonably rejected financial documents. More specifically, Mr. [NAME] submits that the Officer ignored two affidavits and an “[NAME]” Valuation Report from a financial institution. The affidavits comprise one from Mr. [NAME] and one from his wife, stating that in August 2023, they respectively had access to $41,433 CAD and $28,375 CAD. Mr. [NAME] also submits that the Officer unreasonably considered his spouse’s evidence regarding a recurring deposit. In addition, according to Mr. [NAME], the Officer failed to grapple with the Commitment Certificate of the entity designated under section 98.02 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227, which confirms that it had undertaken the necessary due diligence to confirm the Applicant had sufficient funds to meet the work permit requirements under the [NAME]. [ 8 ] The Respondent counters that the Applicant is asking this Court to reweigh the evidence that was before the Officer. Under the Visa Officer Instructions for Bengaluru, Chandigarh and New Delhi, work permit applicants must provide “income tax returns for the past two years, bank statements or books from the past three months. Property documents or other proof of income or investments.” The Respondent argues that the Applicant did not provide any documentation relating to the provenance of the funds, nor that the funds were readily available to support himself and his family while in Canada. The Officer does not have the onus to attempt to clarify information on file with the Applicant or third parties. Rather, the onus is on the Applicant to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Officer that he met the requirements to be granted a work permit. The Respondent further submits that the Officer’s decision to reject the “[NAME]” Valuation Report because it bore the name “[NAME] N [NAME]” also was reasonable. [ 9 ] I agree with Mr. [NAME] that the Officer unreasonably rejected the “[NAME]” Valuation Report because the name “[NAME] N [NAME]” appeared on the document. The Officer ignored that Mr. [NAME] name also appeared on the report, while Mr. [NAME] name was under the heading “[NAME].” The Respondent conceded as much at the oral hearing of this matter. According to Mr. [NAME], the report represents approximately $23,000 of his proof of funds and, therefore, it is not a peripheral matter. I also agree with Mr. [NAME] on this point. [ 10 ] Recognizing that, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing Court typically ought to refrain from interfering with a decision-maker’s factual findings, I find that this is one such exceptional circumstance where the Court’s intervention is warranted: [NAME] , above at para 125. The Officer failed to consider and mention that Mr. [NAME] name appeared on the “[NAME]” Valuation Report; information that was, in my view, “relevant to the finding, and pointed to a different conclusion from that reached by [them]” : [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 8667 [ [RESPONDENT] ] at para 15. [ 11 ] The Respondent relies on this Court’s decision in [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 105 [ [NAME] ] for the principle that “[t]he absence of an explanation as to the source of the […] funds also brings into question whether the funds are really available to the Applicant” (at para 38). While I do not disagree with this principle necessarily, I note that the case before the Court is factually distinct from that in Muthui . [ 12 ] Importantly, here, Mr. [NAME] and his wife both provided sworn statements as to the availability and accessibility of the funds. An affidavit, in itself, is evidence. In addition, the Commitment Certificate from the [NAME] confirmed that it had done its due diligence to ensure that the Applicant had sufficient available funds to meet the Low-Income Cut Off for 12 months for his family size. While none of these documents alone is necessarily determinative of the issue, the Officer failed to mention or consider any of this evidence in their decision. In my view, all these documents taken together point to a different conclusion from that reached by the Officer who thus was required to grapple with it: [NAME] , above at para 15. [ 13 ] Given the Officer’s failure to consider and grapple with financial information adverse to their findings, I find the Decision is not justified, nor transparent, in light of the applicable factual constraints and, therefore, it lacks the hallmarks of reasonableness. [ 14 ] Before concluding, I pause to note that the Officer’s generalized findings that [NAME] would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay and that the purpose of his visit is inconsistent with a temporary stay are linked intimately to the question of sufficiency of funds. Because I have found the Officer’s determination regarding sufficiency of funds to be unreasonable, the Officer’s generalized findings, in my view, are also unreasonable. [ADDRESS] previously has held that such determinations, in the context of the [NAME], typically will be considered unreasonable as a standalone basis for rejecting a work permit: [NAME] , above at paras 29-31; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 411 at paras 15-18.

III. Conclusion [ 15 ] For the above reasons, Mr. [NAME] judicial review application will be granted. The work permit application will be set aside and remitted to a different officer for redetermination. [ 16 ] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7981-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The judicial review is granted. The March 28, 2024 decision of an immigration officer refusing the Applicant’s application for a work permit is set aside. The matter will be remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7981-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME] OF HEARING: June 22, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: June 29, 2026 APPEARANCES: [COUNSEL] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [APPELLANT], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent