Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal for Insufficient Reasoning

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-9960-25 Citation: 2026 FC 827 Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants are a family. Mr. [APPELLANT] applied for an employer-specific work permit that was supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment ( “LMIA” ). Mr. [APPELLANT]’s wife and minor child also made temporary resident visa applications to accompany him to Canada if his work permit application was successful. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer” ) refused the applications. The Applicants are challenging these refusals on judicial review. [ 2 ] The Officer rejected Mr. [APPELLANT]’s work permit on one ground: “you were not able to demonstrate that you will be able to adequately perform the work you seek” . The Officer’s notes discuss the insufficiency of evidence to demonstrate Mr. [APPELLANT]’s current level of proficiency in English and his “active employment” . [ 3 ] The requirement that an officer be satisfied that an individual can perform the work sought is found in paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227. This necessarily can include a person’s ability to communicate in a language required for the job (See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 777). [ 4 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was offered employment as a [NAME] supervisor at a [NAME]. The employment details listed in the LMIA indicate that the employee must have completed secondary school, and that verbal and written English is required for the job. Neither the LMIA nor the job offer specifies any required level of English proficiency or previous experience. [ 5 ] On language ability, the determinative issue is whether the Officer had to do more to address Mr. [APPELLANT]’s submissions that his English language ability is demonstrated by his completion of his bachelor’s degree in engineering where the language of instruction was English. In the record before the Officer, the transcript of the engineering degree indicated that the language of instruction was in English and counsel’s submissions in support of the work permit application highlighted the engineering degree as evidence of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s English language ability. [ 6 ] The Officer does not specifically address Mr. [APPELLANT]’s engineering degree or his counsel’s submissions on his English language ability. The Officer only states “no documentary evidence showing applicant’s current English competencies on file.” [ 7 ] The Respondent argues that the Officer’s use of the word “current” is important because it indicates that the Officer considered Mr. [APPELLANT]’s engineering degree but that it was not evidence of current language ability because it was completed in 2013. In my view, the Officer had to explain more in light of the evidence and the submissions of counsel. This was not one course done years ago but rather a four-year degree completed in English, which suggests that Mr. [APPELLANT] had English language ability prior to entering the program. [ 8 ] Regarding the Officer’s finding about the lack of evidence corroborating Mr. [APPELLANT]’s “active employment” , I do not find that the Officer explained how this finding supported their ultimate determination that Mr. [APPELLANT] had not demonstrated that he could perform the work sought. The Officer did not connect this observation about the lack of sufficient evidence of “active employment” to the reason for refusal. The reasoning is hard to follow and requires a number of inferences to fill in the gaps. The Respondent argued that the Officer’s finding on “active employment” is related to the refusal ground - inability to adequately perform the work - because the experience Mr. [APPELLANT] gained with his [NAME] was necessary to show that he could adequately perform his intended work. If this was the case, the Officer had to explain this connection with reference to the job duties of the intended job. [ 9 ] Ultimately, I find the Officer’s decision unreasonable in that it is not transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65   at para 99; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21   at para 59). Mr. [APPELLANT] also raised a procedural fairness argument. As I have found the Officer’s decision to be unreasonable, it is unnecessary to address the procedural fairness argument raised. Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9960-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is allowed; The decisions dated February 28, 2025 are all set aside and sent back to be redetermined; and No serious question of general importance is certified. blank "Lobat Sadrehashemi" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-9960-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 16, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J DATED: JUNE 18, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT]. Toronto, [NAME] [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent