Background
Marie Louise Foukeng applied for a temporary work permit to work as an agricultural labourer at a Quebec orchard. Her application was supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment and a Quebec Acceptance Certificate. On August 13, 2024, an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada visa officer refused the application for failure to satisfy the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The officer also found that Foukeng had misrepresented a material fact concerning her employment history in Cameroon, potentially inducing an error in the administration of the Act under paragraph 40(1)(a). That finding triggered a five-year period of inadmissibility under paragraph 40(2)(a). Foukeng sought judicial review, alleging that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
Foukeng’s own evidentiary record was deficient. Documents appended to her written submissions had not been identified as exhibits to her affidavit and were therefore inadmissible. Her three-paragraph affidavit, including a statement adopting the allegations in her written argument, had no probative value because it did not establish the relevant facts through personal knowledge.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court nevertheless granted judicial review because the Minister filed a manifestly incomplete certified tribunal record and no other relevant evidence enabling the Court to assess the officer’s reasoning. The record omitted the work-permit application itself, even though the officer’s case-management notes stated that the application had been reviewed. It also omitted Foukeng’s prior statements from 2019 and 2020, which the officer had used to compare her employment history.
The remaining screenshots from the Global Case Management System were unsupported by affidavit evidence explaining their source, timing, fields, data-entry process, or reliability. Nor was there evidence establishing that those screenshots were the electronic document referenced in the officer’s notes. Because the materials underlying the officer’s central reasoning were absent, the Court could not determine whether the analysis was rational, justified, or grounded in the record.
The Court held that the decision was unreasonable, set it aside without costs, and remitted the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination. It did not decide whether Foukeng had actually made a material misrepresentation or whether her work-permit application should ultimately be approved.
Key Takeaways
- A certified tribunal record must contain the relevant materials considered by the administrative decision-maker, including the application under review and prior statements relied upon.
- An applicant’s deficient evidence does not prevent judicial review where the respondent’s materially incomplete certified record makes meaningful reasonableness review impossible.
- Documents merely appended to written submissions are not evidence when they have not been properly introduced through an affidavit in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reasonableness review requires a sufficient record connecting an administrative decision-maker’s reasons to the evidence actually considered. Where central source documents are missing, a court may be unable to assess the rationality and justification of the decision and may set it aside on that basis.
The ruling is particularly significant in immigration matters involving misrepresentation, where an adverse finding automatically carries serious consequences such as a five-year inadmissibility period. It also cautions litigants to introduce documentary evidence properly rather than attaching it only to written argument.