Federal Court Rejects Start-Up Work Permit Challenge

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260605 Docket: IMM-1232-25 Citation: 2026 FC 733 Ottawa, Ontario, June 5, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]-[NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This application for judicial review challenges the refusal of the Applicant’s [NAME] work permit application under the [NAME] dated January 13, 2025 [Decision] by an [NAME] [[NAME]] Officer [Officer]. [ 2 ] For the following reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant is a 50-year-old citizen of China and the Chief Operating Officer of the [NAME], [APPELLANT]. [ 4 ] The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the [NAME] and obtained the required commitment certificate on December 28, 2023, which expired on June 28, 2024. The Applicant submitted her application on June 11, 2024. [ 5 ] While her application for permanent residence was pending and after the expiry of the commitment certificate, the Applicant applied for a [NAME] work permit on August 26, 2024.

III. Decision Under Review [ 6 ] The [NAME] was not convinced the Applicant had demonstrated she was exempted from the requirement to obtain a work permit per the listed exceptions under section 186 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [ Regulations ] or that her employment in Canada was subject to the exceptions per section 203 of the Regulations . As a result, her offer of employment had to be the subject of an economic effect determination before a work permit could be issued to her. The Officer recommended the Applicant’s employer in Canada contact the [NAME] to begin the process of obtaining an economic effect determination. [ 7 ] The Officer was similarly concerned about the Applicant’s immigration status outside of her country of nationality or habitual residence. Notably also, the Officer noted the commitment certificate must be valid at the time of submission of the work permit application. Here, the certificate had expired on June 28, 2024, almost a month before the work permit application was received.

IV. Issue and Standard of Review [ 8 ] The issue to be decided by this Court is whether the [NAME]’s refusal was reasonable. Both parties agree the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an  “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”  and is  “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v   [NAME],  2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ [NAME] ];  [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2023 SCC 21 at para 64). Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must ask  “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility” ( [NAME]  at para 99).

V. Relevant Legislative Provisions [ 9 ] Subsection 12(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 describes how a foreign national obtains permanent resident status in Canada as a member of the economic class: Economic immigration Immigration économique (2) A foreign national may be selected as a member of the economic class on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. (2) La sélection des étrangers de la catégorie « immigration économique » se fait en fonction de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada. [ 10 ] Subsections 98.01(1)-(2) of the Regulations outline the conditions to become a member of the [NAME]: Class Catégorie 98.01 (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the [NAME] is prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada, who meet the requirements of subsection (2) and who intend to reside in a province other than Quebec. 98.01 (1) Pour l’application du paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi, la catégorie « démarrage d’entreprise » est une catégorie réglementaire de personnes qui peuvent devenir résidents permanents du fait de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada, qui satisfont aux exigences visées au paragraphe (2) et qui cherchent à s’établir dans une province autre que le Québec. Member of class Qualité (2) A foreign national is a member of the [NAME] if (2) Appartient à la catégorie « démarrage d’entreprise » l’[NAME] qui satisfait aux exigences suivantes : (a) they have obtained a commitment that is made by one or more entities designated under subsection 98.03(1), that is less than six months old on the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made and that meets the requirements of section 98.04; a) [NAME] a obtenu d’une ou de plusieurs entités désignées en vertu du paragraphe 98.03(1) un engagement qui date de moins de six mois au moment où la demande de visa de résident permanent est faite et qui satisfait aux exigences de l’article 98.04; (b) they have submitted the results of a language test that is approved under subsection 102.3(4), which results must be provided by an organization or institution that is designated under that subsection, be less than two years old on the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made and indicate that the foreign national has met at least bench mark level 5 in either official language for all four language skill areas, as set out in the Canadian Language Benchmarks or the Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens, as applicable; b) [NAME] a fourni les résultats — datant de moins de deux ans au moment où la demande est faite — d’un test d’évaluation linguistique approuvé en vertu du para graphe 102.3(4) provenant d’une institution ou d’une organisation désignée en vertu de ce paragraphe qui indiquent qu’[NAME] a obtenu, en français ou en anglais et pour chacune des quatre habiletés langagières, au moins le niveau 5 selon les Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens ou le Canadian Language Benchmarks, selon le cas; (c) they have, excluding any investment made by a designated entity into their business, transferable and available funds unencumbered by debts or other obligations of an amount that is equal to one half of the amount identified, in the most recent edition of the publication concerning low income cut-offs published annually by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act, for urban areas of residence of 500,000 persons or more, as the minimum amount of before-tax annual income that is necessary to support a group of persons equal in number to the total number of the applicant and their family members; and c) [NAME] dispose de fonds transférables, non grevés de dettes ou d’autres obligations financières, à l’exception de tout investissement fait par une entité désignée dans son entreprise, d’un montant égal à la moitié du revenu minimal nécessaire, dans les régions urbaines de 500 000 habitants et plus, selon la version la plus récente de la grille des seuils de faible revenu avant impôt publiée annuellement par [NAME] au titre de la Loi sur la [NAME], pour subvenir pendant un an aux besoins d’un groupe de personnes dont le nombre correspond à celui de l’ensemble du demandeur et des membres de sa famille; (d) they have started a qualifying business within the meaning of section 98.06. d) [NAME] a démarré une entreprise admissible au sens de l’article 98.06.

VI. Analysis [ 11 ] The Applicant argues the [NAME]’s refusal is unreasonable. She alleges that the Officer's refusal was based on the belief that the Applicant was supposed to have submitted the work permit application prior to the expiry date of the commitment certificate. According to the Applicant, because the work permit application was submitted on August 26, 2024, after the expiry date, the Officer erroneously believed this automatically invalidated the work permit application. [ 12 ] The Applicant submits the [NAME] website only requires the application for permanent residence under the [NAME] to be submitted prior to the expiry of the commitment certificate. According to the Applicant, the guidance from the [NAME] expressly consider the work permit being submitted either before or after the submission of the permanent residence application: Applicants must submit an application for permanent residence under Start-up Visa before the Commitment Certificate expires. They must include the Letter of Support with their application. If [NAME] wants to come to Canada while we process their permanent residence application, they can apply for a short-term work permit under the [NAME]. For [NAME] to be eligible for the work permit, you must have identified them as an “essential applicant” on their Commitment Certificate. [NAME] can apply for a work permit before or after applying for permanent residence. In both cases, they need a letter of support from you. [ 13 ] This guidance does not constrain or further describe when the application for a work permit must be submitted in light of the commitment certificate expiry. [ 14 ] For the Applicant, because this erroneous finding of fact was so fundamental to the determination made by the Officer, it constitutes a reviewable error that warrants setting aside the Decision. [ 15 ] The Applicant alternatively suggests the commitment certificate remains valid as long as conditions are met, including the requirement that the permanent residence application be submitted prior to the expiry date and that the designated entity has not cancelled or withdrawn the certificate. Assuming these conditions are met, the Applicant argues the certificate remains valid until the permanent residence application is processed. The Applicant contends there is only an expiry date because paragraph 98.01(2)(a) of the Regulations requires the permanent residence application be submitted within six months of the certificate being issued. Otherwise, it has no bearing on the work permit application. [ 16 ] I am not convinced by the Applicant’s submissions. [ 17 ] As noted by the Respondent, [NAME]’s guidelines entitled the Employer-specific work permit applications for [NAME] permanent residence applicants received before October 3, 2024 [Guidelines] require the work permit application be received while the commitment certificate is still valid: Application assessment The [NAME] is a permanent resident program under the IRPR. As such, a permanent residence application should be submitted prior to the work permit application for an Officer to be satisfied the applicant is being assessed for the purpose of the [NAME]. When Officers are reviewing the work permit application under the [NAME] category, the following factors should be assessed: … •The applicant has provided a Commitment Certificate – Letter of Support from the designated entity that explains the urgent business need for the applicant to enter Canada prior to the finalization of their permanent residence application. •If the processing Officer is satisfied that it is reasonable for the applicant to be physically in Canada to start up their proposed business prior to permanent residence, this would align with the policy rationale. •The work permit application must be received while this document is still valid. This aligns with the urgent need for the applicant to be in Canada prior to permanent residence. [Emphasis added] [ 18 ] Timing of the submission of an applicant’s work permit in respect of a valid Commitment Certificate is addressed in a note in the Guidelines: Note: While not explicitly stated in these considerations , the Commitment Certificate has to be valid at the time that the work permit application or permanent residence application is submitted. This criterion was intended to be self-evident, given that if the Commitment Certificate expired before a permanent residence application was submitted, the work permit applicant could not be an essential member who was required to enter Canada prior to obtaining permanent residence in the [NAME]. Therefore, they did not meet the basic eligibility of this category. [Emphasis added] [ 19 ] In light of these requirements, I find that it was reasonable and required for the Officer to refuse the Applicant’s work permit application ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 662 at paras 21–25). [ 20 ] With regard to the Applicant’s alternative argument suggesting the commitment certificate remains valid as long as conditions are met, I find it to be without merit. The Applicant’s position parsing the difference between validity and expiry dates is similarly without merit. Accepting that a document remains valid despite its expiration is inconsistent with the treatment of expired documents as invalid under the Regulations and policy rationale of the [NAME] ( Regulations at ss 63(c), 209, 222(1)(c)). In fact, these sections of the Regulations consistently deem a document to be invalid when the period of validity specified on the document expires. [ 21 ] I conclude the Officer reasonably found, without a renewed commitment certificate, the Applicant had not satisfied the requirements under the Regulations .

VII. Conclusion [ 22 ] The Applicant has not met her burden of establishing the Officer’s decision was unreasonable either in its outcome or in the reasons provided. The Decision complies with the requirements of justification, transparency and intelligibility imposed by the Supreme Court in [NAME] . Therefore, this application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 23 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1232-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to be certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1232-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME] OF HEARING: JUNE 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]-[NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 5, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto (Ontario) For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT