The
Federal Court considered whether a work permit officer reasonably refused an
application to extend a work permit for a position as a Direct Support
Professional (NOC 42201). The applicant argued that he possessed the
necessary education and experience to perform the job and that the officer had
acted unfairly in assessing his application. The Court dismissed the judicial
review, holding that the officer’s decision was reasonable and that the
applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that he met
the position’s requirements.
Key
Principles
The
Court reaffirmed that applicants bear the burden of submitting complete
applications and proving that they meet all educational and experience
requirements. Judicial review is not an opportunity to introduce new
evidence or ask the Court to reweigh the record. Applicants are also
responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions of their immigration
status and correcting errors when they arise.
Background
The
applicant, a British citizen, sought an extension of his authorization to work
in Canada as a Direct Support Professional. The employer’s job offer
specified that candidates were required to possess a college diploma or
university degree in human services and at least one year of experience
working with persons with developmental disabilities. The position involved
providing support services to vulnerable individuals and maintaining records in
accordance with organizational policies.
The
applicant relied on a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree and previous work
experience in Canada and abroad to demonstrate that he met the requirements of
the position. However, the officer was not satisfied that the applicant’s legal
education was equivalent to a degree in human services or that the documentary
evidence adequately established the required experience.
Court
Findings
The
Federal Court upheld the officer’s conclusions.
A
central issue was the applicant’s argument that his law degree should be
considered equivalent to a degree in human services. The Court found that no
evidence supporting this equivalency had been presented to the officer during
the application process. Although the applicant attempted to file additional
evidence during judicial review, the Court emphasized that judicial review is
generally limited to the record that was before the decision-maker. New
evidence cannot be used to repair deficiencies in an application after a
decision has been made.
The
Court also upheld the officer’s assessment of the applicant’s Canadian work
experience. The applicant acknowledged that he had worked in a position that
differed from the occupation listed on his work permit and argued that IRCC
should have recognized and corrected the error. The Court rejected this
submission, holding that applicants are responsible for complying with the
conditions of their immigration status and must take steps to correct errors
affecting their authorization to work. Ignorance of the immigration system did
not excuse non-compliance.
The
officer further found that the applicant’s claimed foreign work experience was
not adequately corroborated by documentary evidence. The Court held that
assessing the reliability and weight of such evidence falls squarely within an
officer’s expertise and attracts considerable deference on judicial review.
Additionally,
the Court noted that one of the duties listed in the employer’s job
description—maintaining comprehensive financial records—appeared inconsistent
with the duties typically associated with NOC 42201. The officer was entitled
to consider this discrepancy when evaluating whether the position genuinely
matched the claimed occupation.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal as reasonable.
Case Citation: Bolaji v. Canada, 2026 FC 59 (CanLII)
