Federal Court Rejects Work Permit Appeal
📌 In brief
The Federal Court rejected a worker's appeal regarding a denied work permit application. The court ruled that the worker did not provide enough proof of education or work experience to meet the necessary requirements for the work permit.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant must provide sufficient evidence of education or work experience to meet the mandatory requirements of an LMIA-exempt work permit.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review of a denied work permit application, finding the decision reasonable and procedurally fair.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a denied work permit application, finding the decision reasonable and procedurally fair. The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of education or work experience to meet the mandatory requirements of an LMIA-exempt work permit.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260615 Docket: IMM-6173-25 Citation: 2026 FC 798 Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
REASONS AND
JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision denying his work permit application and restoration. He applied for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) exempt work permit. On December 11, 2024, the immigration officer (Officer) found that the Applicant had not met the mandatory requirements of the LMIA-exempt work permit because he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he could perform the work sought. [ 2 ] The Applicant submitted his work permit to work as a food service supervisor under NOC 62020. NOC 62020 has the following requirement: 62020 – Food service supervisors… Employment requirements Completion of a community college program in [NAME], hotel and restaurant management or related discipline or several years of experience in food preparation or service are required. Completion of secondary school is usually required. [ 3 ] The Applicant provided no evidence of education or work experience, instead only providing a copy of his previous work permit and his prospective employment contract. His work permit application mentioned that he had obtained a post-graduate diploma from [COMPANY] in Brantford, Ontario, but he did not mention the field. His other evidence showed that he had worked for one year for the same employer, [NAME], as an assistant manager. [ 4 ] Because the Applicant applied for his work permit application when he was out of status, he also applied for the restoration of his status, which was refused at the same time and subsequent to the refusal of the work permit application. [ 5 ] In refusing his application, the Officer noted the following in his GCMS notes: Noc website indicates that "Completion of a community college program in [NAME], hotel and restaurant management or related discipline or several years of experience in food preparation or service are required." I have compared the information and supporting documents to match with NOC website to review client eligibility for LMIA work permit as a Food Service Supervisor. Client has failed to provide previous Experience letter working in a food service or preparation; pay stubs; T4 for previous years or Completion of community college program in [NAME] or related field. Based on the above I am not satisfied client will be able to perform work duties.
II. Decision [ 6 ] For the following reasons, I dismiss the Applicant’s judicial review. I find that the decision was reasonable and reached in a procedurally fair manner.
III. The Issues and Standard of Review [ 7 ] I agree with the parties that the main issue is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable. At the hearing, the Applicant’s counsel stated that she would not advance an argument based on the Decision being reached in breach of procedural fairness. [ 8 ] The standard of review applicable to visa decisions is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 23 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1645 at para 13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1741 at para 15). A reasonable 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” ( Vavilov at para 85). The reviewing court must ensure that the decision is justifiable, intelligible, and transparent ( Vavilov at para 95). Justifiable and transparent decisions account for central issues and concerns raised in the parties’ submissions to the decision maker ( Vavilov at para 127).
IV. Analysis A. The Officer’s decision was reasonable [ 9 ] The decision is reasonable. It is responsive to the evidence before the Officer and complies with the requirements of the program to which the Applicant had applied. [ 10 ] The Applicant does not dispute the facts. When the Applicant applied for his work permit, he did not submit any evidence that he completed an educational program in the [NAME] or evidence of several years of related experience. His evidence showed one year of related experience as the assistant manager of the same prospective employer. [ 11 ] First, the Applicant relied on [NAME] to argue that the Officer conflated the NOC general employment requirements that may or may not apply to the position in question with the specific requirements found in the LMIA ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 835 at para 22 [ [NAME] ]). However, in the same decision, the Court distinguished the mandatory requirements of a NOC – conditions listed as “required” , from a NOC’s non-mandatory requirements, which are “usually required” ( [NAME] at paras 20–21). In [NAME] , the Court found that the Officer had unreasonably assessed the NOC requirements. However, for the job that the Applicant applied, the language of the requirement is not qualified in any way, and it was therefore reasonable for the Officer to view it as a condition precedent. [ 12 ] Second, the Applicant argues that it was unreasonable for the Officer to ignore the evidence of his employment history with the same employer for one year as an assistant manager, and that the employer wanted him back in the same position. In this context, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he could not perform the same job. [ 13 ] The Officer did not ignore the evidence and specifically mentioned it in their reasons. However, it was reasonable for them to consider the NOC’s mandatory requirement as a condition for issuance. The Applicant’s one year experience fell short of the requirement of several years. [ 14 ] The Reasons demonstrate a clear and logical chain of reasoning. They show how the existing evidence is insufficient to establish the requirement of the program in a manner that is intelligible, transparent and justifiable.
V. Conclusion [ 15 ] The Application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 16 ] The parties did not propose a certified question, and I agree that none arises in this case.
JUDGMENT IN IMM-6173-25 THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that The application for Judicial Review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank “Negar Azmudeh” blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket : IMM-6173-25 STYLE OF CAUSE : [NAME] v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING : VIA videoconference DATE OF HEARING : JUNE 11, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT : AZMUDEH J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The RespondenT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The immigration officer's decision was reasonable and followed a fair process.
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of education or work experience for the work permit.
- The job requirements for a food service supervisor included completing a college program or several years of experience.
- The applicant's one year of experience as an assistant manager was not enough to meet the "several years" requirement.
- The officer reasonably considered the NOC's mandatory requirement as a condition for issuing the work permit.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant's argument that the officer conflated general and specific NOC requirements was rejected.
- The applicant's argument that the officer ignored his one year of employment history was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review of a denied work permit application.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the mandatory requirements for an LMIA-exempt work permit.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant's application was denied reasonably and procedurally fairly because he did not provide sufficient evidence of education or work experience.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the claimant failed to provide adequate evidence of education or work experience.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they provide sufficient evidence of education or work experience when applying for a work permit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the claimant's previous work permit, employment contract, and lack of documentation proving education or work experience.