Background
Ajaib Singh, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit under Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to work as a drywall installer and finisher for a construction company in Montreal. His application was supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment. An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer refused the application on two grounds: a finding that Mr. Singh lacked significant family ties outside Canada that would compel him to leave at the end of his authorized stay, and a finding that he had failed to demonstrate he could “adequately perform” the proposed work.
To substantiate his approximately three years of experience as a drop ceiling installer, Mr. Singh submitted a letter from his employer, a sworn affidavit detailing his work history, photographs of him performing the work, a co-worker’s sworn affidavit corroborating his employment, pay slips, and income tax returns corroborating his salary. Despite this, the officer concluded that only “limited documentary evidence” had been provided, noting the absence of bank statements to confirm salary deposits and questioning why someone with a Hotel Management diploma would pursue construction work.
Mr. Singh sought judicial review of the April 1, 2025 refusal decision before Justice Sadrehashemi of the Federal Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Sadrehashemi allowed the application for judicial review and set aside the officer’s decision, finding it unreasonable on the ground relating to Mr. Singh’s ability to perform the work. The court found that characterizing the documentary evidence as “limited” was not justifiable given the volume and variety of corroborating materials provided — employer letter, sworn affidavits, photographs, co-worker testimony, pay slips, and tax returns. The officer failed to explain why those documents were insufficient and offered no analysis of the weight assigned to any of them before faulting Mr. Singh for not also providing bank statements.
The court also found the officer’s reference to Mr. Singh’s Hotel Management diploma problematic. Unless the officer was drawing a negative credibility inference from the diploma — implying Mr. Singh’s claimed construction experience was fabricated — the diploma was irrelevant. If a credibility concern was indeed the basis for the refusal, procedural fairness required that Mr. Singh be given notice of that concern and an opportunity to respond, citing Obasi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 746. No such opportunity was provided.
The court found it unnecessary to rule on the family-ties ground because the unreasonableness of the work-experience determination was itself sufficient to quash the decision. The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer. No question of general importance was certified.
Key Takeaways
- An officer must engage meaningfully with the evidence actually submitted; dismissing a substantial body of corroborating documents as “limited” without explanation renders a refusal unreasonable.
- Where an officer draws a negative credibility inference from circumstantial factors — such as an unrelated educational credential — the applicant must be given notice and an opportunity to respond before the inference is acted upon.
- A positive Labour Market Impact Assessment does not guarantee work permit approval, but officers must provide transparent, justified reasoning when overriding the evidence an applicant submits in support of their qualifications.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that reasonableness review requires officers to grapple with the specific evidence before them, not merely note what is absent. For immigration practitioners, it is a useful reminder that refusals grounded in undisclosed credibility concerns — even indirect ones — remain vulnerable to judicial review on procedural fairness grounds.
For foreign workers seeking Canadian work permits, the case illustrates both the importance of submitting varied, corroborating documentation and the availability of judicial review as a check on inadequately reasoned refusals, even where a supportive Labour Market Impact Assessment is on file.