Federal Court Rejects Claimant’s Judicial Review Application on Immigration Points

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260702 Docket: IMM-10868-24 Citation: 2026 FC 892 Ottawa, Ontario, July 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME] [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant [APPELLANT] holds a closed work permit in Canada. He received an invitation to apply for permanent resident [PR] status through the Canadian Experience Class of the [NAME]. When he applied, he claimed 444 Comprehensive Ranking System [CRS] points. An [NAME] [[NAME]] officer [Officer] rejected Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application because the Officer was not satisfied that Mr. [APPELLANT] qualified for all the CRS points he claimed, notably 50 points for holding a “Certificate of Qualification” as a truck driver. The Officer thus deducted the latter points, with the result that Mr. [APPELLANT] did not have sufficient points to receive PR status [Decision]. [ 2 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] now seeks judicial review of the Decision, arguing that: there was a breach of his legitimate expectations and procedural fairness; the Officer retrospectively applied policy changes, violated the principles of natural justice and Charter principles; the Officer was biased; [NAME] is inconsistent in its decision-making; and the Officer misinterpreted the legal and policy framework. [ 3 ] The Respondent counters that there is only one body in Ontario, i.e. [NAME], that is competent to issue certificates of qualification. According to the Respondent, Mr. [APPELLANT] was not eligible to claim the 50 points in issue because [NAME] does not issue certificates of qualification for truck drivers. [ 4 ] For the reasons below, I find that Mr. [APPELLANT] has not satisfied his onus of showing that the Decision is unreasonable or that it was determined in a procedurally unfair manner. The judicial review thus will be dismissed.

II. Analysis A. The Applicant has not shown that the Decision is unreasonable [ 5 ] When reviewing a decision on the reasonableness standard, the Court must ask itself if the decision, read holistically, is transparent, intelligible and justified, recognizing that it need not be perfect. The challenger must persuade the Court that the challenged decision is unreasonable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 91, 100 [ [APPELLANT] ]. [ 6 ] The Officer found that the Mr. [APPELLANT]’s Mandatory Entry-Level Training [MELT] certificate did not constitute a Certificate of Qualification for the purposes of the [NAME] and, therefore, deducted 50 CRS points from the Applicant’s total score. [ 7 ] The central issue thus turns on the reasonableness of the Officer’s interpretation of subparagraph 87.2(3)(d)(i) under the Federal Skilled Trades Class provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ], which provides that a foreign national is a member of the federal skilled trades class if they hold a Certificate of Qualification issued by a competent provincial or federal authority in the skilled trade occupation specified in the application. See Annex “A” below for relevant legislative provisions. [ 8 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] submits that his MELT certificate, his Class AZ driver’s licence, and the Air Brake Endorsement on his licence cumulatively function as a Certificate of Qualification. The Class AZ licence, in particular, is a requirement to be a truck driver in Ontario and is issued by the Ministry of Transport, which, in his view, is a competent provincial authority under subparagraph 87.2(3)(d)(i) of the IRPR . [ 9 ] Further, the [NAME] [NAME] [PDI], updated in September 2023 and in effect at the time Mr. [APPELLANT] received his Invitation to Apply for PR status [[NAME]], included a list of National Occupational Classification [NOC] codes that could allow an applicant working in that occupation to claim an additional 50 points for skill transferability if the applicant were issued a Certificate of Qualification. NOC code 73300 for “Transport Truck Drivers,” Mr. [APPELLANT]’s occupation, was included in this list. In his view, he was entitled automatically to the 50 points because his occupation was included in the list. NOC code 73300 was removed from the eligible occupation reference list included in the [NAME]. He submits that the Officer’s reliance on the PDI as updated in November 2023 [[NAME]], which removed NOC code 73300 from the eligible occupation reference, was unreasonable. [ 10 ] For its part, the Respondent submits that the Officer’s decision is reasonable. Paragraph 26(2)(a) of the Ministerial Instructions Respecting the Express Entry System (April 25, 2023 to June 25, 2024) state that a Certificate of Qualification must be issued by a competent provincial authority. The only competent body in Ontario for the purposes of issuing a Certificate of Qualification is [NAME] under the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act , SO 2021, c 28. Importantly, [NAME] does not issue Certificates of Qualification to Tractor-Trailer Commercial Drivers. Because Mr. [APPELLANT]’s driver’s licence and the MELT certificate were not issued by [NAME], they are not, individually or cumulatively, a Certificate of Qualification. [ 11 ] I agree with the Respondent. The Officer’s conclusion that Mr. [APPELLANT] did not hold a Certificate of Qualification is not unreasonable. Mr. [APPELLANT] does not argue that he holds a Certificate of Qualification issued by [NAME]. This concession alone is sufficient to uphold the reasonableness of the Decision. The Ontario legislation is clear that only [NAME] may issue a Certificate of Qualification and this body does not issue certificates of qualification to truck drivers. Mr. [APPELLANT] has not provided any legislative or jurisprudential support for his submission that the MELT certificate or his driver’s licence qualify, either individually or cumulatively, as a Certificate of Qualification. [ 12 ] Mr. [APPELLANT]’s interpretation of the [NAME] to the effect that it automatically entitled him to the additional 50 points because his NOC code was included in the list of eligible occupations is also untenable. I agree with the Respondent, neither the [NAME] nor the [NAME] displaced the requirement that an applicant needed a valid Certificate of Qualification in order to claim the additional 50 CRS points. This is clear from a plain reading of the [NAME], which provides that “[t]o be awarded skill transferability factor CRS points for a certificate of qualification in a trade occupation, the certificate must be issued by the body that governs trades in a province or territory . […] Depending on the province or territory, this certificate is called a ‘certificate of qualification’ or a ‘qualification certificate,’ and will be clearly indicated on the certificate” [emphasis added]. Similarly, and more explicitly, the [NAME] provides that eligibility is contingent on “the certificate of qualification submitted meet[ing] all of the aforementioned requirements and the requirements in the ministerial instructions.” [NAME] circumscribed which occupations would be eligible for the additional CRS points if the applicant had a Certificate of Qualification – it did not do away with the requirement that an applicant needs a valid Certificate of Qualification. [ 13 ] In my view, Mr. [APPELLANT] merely disagrees with the Officer’s interpretation of the [NAME]; this alone is not grounds for judicial review. [ 14 ] Because both [NAME] required that an applicant hold a valid Certificate of Qualification to be entitled to the additional 50 CRS points, it was not an error for the Officer to rely on the [NAME] when coming to their decision. Even if I were to consider it an error to have done so, it is not “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” : [APPELLANT] , above at para 100. [ 15 ] Mr. [APPELLANT]’s submissions that the [NAME] are somehow unreasonable on their own and therefore inapplicable, also must fail. First, this argument falls outside of the scope of the judicial review in the matter, which contests the Decision and not the policy. Second, and more importantly, “regulations or policies of the Governor in Council or the minister are not reviewable, except in cases of excess of jurisdiction, failure to comply with legislative or regulatory requirements. In other words, it is not open to a reviewing court to determine the wisdom of the regulation or policy and to assess their validity on the basis of the court’s preferences” : [COMPANY] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 1435 at para 103. The [NAME] are a policy decision on the part of the Respondent. Here, Mr. [APPELLANT] does not suggest that the Minister exceeded their jurisdiction or failed to comply with legislative or regulatory requirements. B. The Applicant has established procedural unfairness [ 16 ] Questions of procedural fairness attract a correctness‑like standard of review: [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54; [NAME], above at para 77. No standard of review applies per se ; the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair and just in the circumstances: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 520 at para 24. [ 17 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] submits the Officer’s retroactive application of the [NAME] breached his legitimate expectation that the [NAME], the policy in force at the time he submitted his PR application, would be applied and he therefore was entitled to the additional 50 CRS points. He also submits that the Decision was inconsistent with previous [NAME] decisions on other PR applications under the same program, where [NAME] attributed the additional 50 points to individuals who held a Class AZ licence and MELT certificate. In Mr. [APPELLANT]’s view, the Officer’s failure to attribute these points to him demonstrates bias and is inconsistent with the principle of equality enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 , being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [ Charter ]. [ 18 ] The Respondent submits there was no breach of procedural fairness in the circumstances and there was no breach of Charter principles. [ 19 ] I note that in the context of PR applications, the duty of fairness is on the lower end of the spectrum: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1880 at para 19. [ 20 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] was not entitled to the additional points under either the [NAME] or the [NAME]. For a legitimate expectation to arise, there must be a “clear, unambiguous and unqualified” representation on behalf of a decision-maker that a specific procedure will be followed when coming to a decision or that a positive outcome would issue: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2013 SCC 36 [ [NAME] ] at paras 95-96. Importantly, the doctrine does not give rise to substantive rights: [NAME] at para 97; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 751 at para 15. There was no clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation here that Mr. [APPELLANT] would be granted the additional 50 CRS points for having a Certificate of Qualification, when he did not, in fact, have one. I note again that neither the [NAME] nor the [NAME] eliminated the requirement that the individual applicant have a Certificate of Qualification. In my view, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s interpretation of the [NAME] is not grounded in any clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation by [NAME]. [ 21 ] Further, Mr. [APPELLANT] has not demonstrated any bias on the part of the Officer. Decision-makers are presumed to be impartial and applicants alleging bias bear the burden of demonstrating that a reasonable and informed person, with knowledge of all relevant circumstances, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would think that it is more likely than not that the decision-maker, whether consciously or not, decided the matter fairly: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 743 at para 19; Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al , 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 369 at 394; R v S (RD) , 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC) at para 114. I find that Mr. [APPELLANT] has not met this burden; mere suspicion or impressions, conjecture or insinuations cannot ground a finding of bias, the allegations must be supported by material evidence which demonstrates conduct derogating from the standard: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 30 at para 12. [ 22 ] In addition, the fact that another person was attributed the additional 50 points does not mean that the Officer was biased in Mr. [APPELLANT]’s case. There is no evidence on the record of any applicant receiving the 50 CRS points because of their driver’s licence or MELT certificate. While the Applicant suggests that he is “personally acquainted with several individuals who have successfully claimed and received these 50 points for their MELT certificate” and claims that at least one other “individual, […], who had similar experience, qualifications, driver's license, and other mandatory documents […] successfully claimed 50 points for the MELT certificate and subsequently received permanent residency on this basis,” there is no evidence whatsoever that these individuals actually received the additional 50 points. It could very well be that they did not and happened to have more points in other categories such that the deduction of 50 CRS points did not bring their total points below the required threshold. It also could be that these cases were wrongly decided. Regardless, these representations by Mr. [APPELLANT] “[fall] well short of establishing systemic inconsistency that might in turn cause [the Court] to conclude the process was unfair based on a breach of an applicants’ legitimate expectations” : [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1359 at para 50. [ 23 ] I also note that there is no horizontal stare decisis with respect to administrative decision makers; each application must be considered on its own merits: Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) v [APPELLANT] , 2016 FCA 242 at para 41. [ 24 ] Lastly, Mr. [APPELLANT] has not demonstrated that the Charter principle of equality was breached. In my view, he has failed to identify on which enumerated or analogous ground he allegedly was discriminated against.

III. Conclusion [ 25 ] For the above reasons, the application will be dismissed. The parties do not propose a question for certification, and I find that none arises in the circumstances. Neither party seeks their costs; none are awarded.

JUDGMENT in IMM-10868-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s judicial review application is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge Annex “A” : Relevant Provisions Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 Règlement sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés , DORS/2002-227 87.2 (3) A foreign national is a member of the federal skilled trades class if 87.2 (3) Fait partie de la catégorie des travailleurs de métiers spécialisés (fédéral) l’étranger qui : […] … (d) they meet at least one of the following requirements: d) satisfait à au moins l’une des exigences suivantes : (i) they hold a certificate of qualification issued by a competent provincial or federal authority in the skilled trade occupation specified in the application for a permanent resident visa… (i) il a obtenu un certificat de compétence délivré par une autorité compétente provinciale ou fédérale pour le métier spécialisé visé par sa demande… FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-10868-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: may 19, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]. DATED: July 2, 2026 APPEARANCES: [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent