The
Federal Court considered whether contradictory information submitted in a work
permit application justified the finding of inadmissibility and a five-year
ban, particularly where the applicant and representative argued that the errors
were the result of innocent mistakes and not intentional concealment. The Court
ultimately allowed the judicial review and sent the matter back for
reconsideration.
Background
The
Applicant entered Canada in 2019 on a study permit and made several
unsuccessful attempts to maintain status after his post-graduation work permit
expired. In May 2023, he submitted a new work permit application through a
different immigration consultant, the application at issue in this case.
IRCC
identified inconsistencies and issued a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL). The concerns centred on contradictory information about the Applicant’s
residence history and employment dates, including when he left Canada, whether
he remained employed there, and when he began freelance work in Ecuador. IRCC
suspected the inconsistencies indicated false information and a possible
overstay.
In
response to PFL, the Applicant’s consultant accepted responsibility, explaining
that incorrect dates had been entered due to assumptions and rushed preparation,
with no intent to mislead. The Applicant also pointed out that the correct
information was already mentioned elsewhere in the application—including
passport stamps showing his actual departure date and disclosures of
unauthorized work in Canada—demonstrating that the errors were accidental
rather than deliberate.
IRCC
nonetheless refused the application, concluding that the Applicant had
misrepresented material facts capable of inducing an error in the
administration of the IRPA. The officer emphasized the conflicting dates and
found they could have affected the assessment of the Applicant’s immigration
history and compliance.
Court
Findings
The
Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to
consider the innocent mistake exception. The Court explained that a
finding of misrepresentation under s. 40 is a serious determination with severe
consequences and should not be made without careful analysis and clear
justification.
The
Court reaffirmed that misrepresentation may not be established where an
applicant honestly and reasonably believed they were not misrepresenting a
material fact. Although officers are not required to accept explanations
of innocent error, they must meaningfully consider them when supported by
evidence. Here, the consultant explicitly admitted responsibility and the
application itself contained both inaccurate and accurate information,
suggesting carelessness rather than intentional deception.
The
Court acknowledged that applicants remain responsible for the accuracy of their
applications even when represented by consultants. That duty, however, does not
relieve the officer of the obligation to consider whether the errors were
innocent mistakes. Because the officer failed to do so, the decision lacked
justification and transparency.
The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the matter to a different officer for reconsideration.
