Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Challenge to Work Permit Denial

Date: 20260316 [NAME] : IMM-4100-25 Citation: 2026 FC 352 Ottawa, Ontario , March 16, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] On this judicial review, the Applicant challenges a decision denying his application for restoration of his work permit. He argues that the restoration application was denied because of incompetence on the part of his former immigration representative.

I. Background [ 2 ] [NAME] was in Canada under an open-work permit with an expiry date of October 25, 2024. [ 3 ] On April 18, 2024, [NAME]’s representative applied for an open-work permit, based on his wife’s post-graduation work permit. This application was not processed, because his representative allegedly did not pay the required Open Work Permit Holder fee. [ 4 ] After the expiry of his work permit on October 25, 2024, [NAME]’s representative submitted a restoration application on October 27, 2024, with the required fee and a [NAME] ([NAME]) employer nomination letter, dated September 13, 2024. This letter indicated that [NAME]’s employment would be restricted and states, in part: In order to obtain an extension to your Temporary Work Permit you must apply to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) prior to your permit expiring. As per the Immigrant [sic] Refugee Protection Regulation 204.c, please include a copy of this letter with your application. Please refer to IRCC at www.canada.ca for additional requirements including other supporting documentation and fees prior to submitting the application. Please note your qualification as a Nominee does not guarantee acceptance of your application for a temporary work permit or permanent residence in Canada. [ 5 ] On February 6, 2025, [NAME]’s restoration application was denied, on the grounds that the [NAME] letter indicated that his employment would be restricted, which was contrary to the terms under which his initial open-work permit was issued. [ 6 ] On this judicial review, [NAME] seeks review of the denial of his restoration application. The decision to refuse his permit for failure to pay the renewal fee is not before the Court.

II. Issue [ 7 ] The Applicant does not challenge the merits of the decision under review, rather he argues that the restoration application was refused because of the incompetence of his representative. [ 8 ] In assessing allegations of incompetence, the Court considers if: (1) the representative’s acts or omissions constituted incompetence or negligence; (2) a miscarriage of justice resulted from the incompetence; and (3) the representative had the opportunity to respond to the allegations ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1189 at para 16 [ [NAME] ]). [ 9 ] The second part of the test, “miscarriage of justice” , is also referred to as “prejudice” . On this, the Supreme Court has directed that if the court determines that no prejudice arises, then the court should limit its consideration to the prejudice issue only, since the “object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance or professional conduct” ( R v [NAME] , 2000 SCC 22 at para 29 [ [NAME] ]).

III. Analysis [ 10 ] Accordingly, I will first assess if there has been a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to [NAME] because of the alleged incompetence. [ 11 ] A miscarriage of justice can arise if the outcome of the case would have been different “but for” counsel’s incompetence ( [NAME] at para 28). That said, substantial prejudice may not necessarily arise, even if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have differed ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 1351 at para 33 [ [NAME] ]). Reopening a matter due to incompetence is extraordinary relief, therefore an applicant is required to put their “best foot forward” in persuading the Court that the outcome would have been different but for the incompetence ( [NAME] at para 21). [ 12 ] In this case, even if I were to accept that the conduct of [NAME]’s representative led to the rejection of his restoration application, I must also be satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his work permit application would have been different but for this incompetence and that he has suffered substantial prejudice as a result. [ 13 ] On this issue, [NAME]’s submissions do not address or demonstrate how he would otherwise meet the criteria for restoration under a spousal open-work permit. I note that the Restoration Letter indicates that [NAME]’s restoration application was not guaranteed to be granted. [NAME]’s submissions are largely premised on the presumption that the work permit would have automatically been issued if the request had been properly made. However, in my view, without clear language that the Officer was mandated to automatically issue a work permit in the Applicant’s circumstances, [NAME] cannot assert that, but for the incompetence, he would have been issued a work permit. On this application, [NAME] was required to “put his best foot forward” and provide his proposed evidence that the result probably would have been different but for his representative’s incompetence ( [NAME] at para 21). [ 14 ] Even if the outcome of the permit application may have been different, [NAME] must still establish that he has suffered prejudice as a result ( [NAME] at para 33). The prejudice alleged here is that [NAME] would have to leave Canada to reapply for a work permit from outside Canada. I do not have any evidence in the record before me to confirm that is the only option for [NAME]. But even if it is the case that [NAME] must reapply from outside Canada, I would characterize that as an inconvenience, rather than prejudice. [ 15 ] On these facts, I am not satisfied that [NAME] has suffered prejudice as it appears that he is free to reapply for another work permit. Relatedly, I also note that there were no findings of misrepresentation against [NAME] that would prevent him from reapplying for a work permit.

Accordingly, his situation is unlike applicants in other cases, such as [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 1196 at paras 46-67, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 165 at paras 81-118, [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1225 at paras 39-43 and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 576 at paras 56-59, who were highly prejudiced by findings of misrepresentation, or denial of refugee status, due to incompetent counsel.

IV. Conclusion [ 16 ] I am not satisfied that the result of [NAME]’s restoration application would have differed, despite his representative’s conduct. Furthermore, I am not satisfied, even if [NAME] must leave Canada to reapply for a work permit, that amounts to prejudice such as to support a claim of incompetence. This judicial review is therefore dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-4100-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-4100-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: february 24, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS : McDonald J. DATED: March 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : Mandeep Chaudhery FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT