Alvarez Gonzalez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 628 : Work Permit Misrepresentation Finding Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Consider Innocent Consultant Errors

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Andre Alejandro Alvarez Gonzalez’s work permit application and the accompanying five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation. The application contained inconsistent dates concerning his residence and employment history. His immigration consultant accepted responsibility for entering the incorrect information and explained that the application had been prepared in haste. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to consider whether the inaccuracies fell within the innocent-mistake exception.

Key Principle

A finding of misrepresentation is serious and requires clear and convincing evidence. Where an applicant’s representative accepts responsibility for form-filling errors, the correct information also appears elsewhere in the application, and there is no indication that the applicant concealed the relevant facts, the officer must meaningfully consider whether the inaccuracies were innocent and reasonable mistakes. The officer is not required to accept the explanation but cannot impose a five-year inadmissibility finding without addressing it.

Background

The applicant had previously held temporary status in Canada and made several unsuccessful applications to maintain or restore his status.

In a later work permit application, the forms contained two central inaccuracies. One entry stated that he stopped residing in Canada in August 2021, although passport stamps showed that he returned abroad in December 2022. Another entry stated that he began freelance web-design work in April 2022, although he actually began in January 2023.

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter identifying concerns about the contradictory residence and employment information.

The consultant responded that he had entered the dates incorrectly, made assumptions while preparing the application quickly, and accepted responsibility for the errors.

Court Findings

• Innocent-Mistake Exception Was Not Considered
The Court held that the officer failed to consider whether the inaccuracies resulted from innocent mistakes, despite the consultant accepting responsibility for the errors. Before imposing a five-year inadmissibility finding, the officer was required to meaningfully assess whether the explanation supported the innocent-mistake exception.

• Correct Information Appeared Elsewhere
The Court noted that the application itself contained information contradicting the inaccurate entries, including passport stamps showing the applicant’s actual departure date and disclosures regarding his unauthorized work. This supported the applicant’s claim that the errors were inadvertent rather than deceptive.

• Evidence Did Not Show Concealment
The coexistence of both accurate and inaccurate information suggested careless preparation of the application rather than an attempt to conceal material facts. The Court found that this evidence strengthened the possibility of an innocent error and required careful consideration by the officer.

• Consultant’s Explanation Required Meaningful Assessment
Although the officer was not obligated to accept the consultant’s explanation, it could not simply be disregarded. The Court held that the officer had to engage with the consultant’s detailed admission of responsibility before concluding that the applicant had committed misrepresentation.

• Applicant Still Had a Duty of Candour
The Court acknowledged that the applicant remained responsible for the accuracy of the forms he signed. However, this duty did not relieve the officer from considering the evidence suggesting that the errors originated with the immigration consultant rather than deliberate misconduct by the applicant.

• Five-Year Consequence Required Stronger Justification
Given the severe consequence of a five-year inadmissibility finding, the officer’s reasons had to demonstrate careful consideration of the innocent-mistake evidence. The failure to analyze this issue rendered the decision unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the work permit application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Alvarez Gonzalez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 628 (CanLII)