In
Brar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 631, the Federal Court
considered whether an officer reasonably refused a permanent residence
application under the Agri-Food Pilot Program (AFPP) after concluding
that the applicant lacked qualifying work experience. The Court granted
judicial review and held that the officer failed to provide an intelligible
explanation for rejecting evidence submitted by the applicant and instead
relying on an open internet search.
Key
Legal Principle
The
decision reinforces the principle that officers cannot simply prefer
information obtained through internet or open-source searches without
explaining why contradictory evidence submitted by an applicant is rejected. Where significant evidence is provided in response to a procedural fairness
process, decision-makers must meaningfully engage with that evidence and
explain their reasoning.
Background
The
applicant, a citizen of India, applied for permanent residence under the AFPP
based on his employment with Khaira Farms Ltd. The applicant claimed
qualifying work experience under an eligible NAICS 1114 and NOC 85101 combination. To support his application, he submitted employment letters, pay
records, tax documents, a positive LMIA, and other evidence describing Khaira
Farms’ greenhouse and vegetable production operations.
IRCC
issued a Procedural Fairness Letter expressing concerns that Khaira Farms
primarily grew blueberries, an activity falling under a different and
ineligible NAICS classification. In response, the applicant provided additional
evidence, including amended employment letters, photographs, Google Maps
images, and third-party confirmation showing that the farm was primarily
engaged in vegetable production and greenhouse operations.
Despite
receiving this evidence, the officer refused the application after conducting
an open web-based search of the farm’s address and concluding that the
greenhouses occupied only a small portion of the property. Based on that
search, the officer determined that Khaira Farms was not primarily engaged in
activities falling within NAICS 1114 and therefore that the applicant lacked
the required qualifying work experience.
Court
Findings
The
Federal Court found the decision unreasonable. Justice Gleeson held that while
the applicant bore the burden of proving eligibility, the officer was still
required to provide transparent and intelligible reasons explaining why the
evidence submitted by the applicant was rejected. The officer acknowledged the
applicant’s evidence but failed to meaningfully engage with it.
The
Court emphasized that the officer did not explain:
- why the internet
search was preferred over the documentary evidence;
- why greenhouse size
was a reliable measure of the farm’s primary business activity;
- why the evidence
indicating substantial vegetable production was rejected; or
- how the officer
reconciled contradictory evidence in the record.
Because the reasons failed to disclose a coherent chain of analysis, the Court was unable to understand how the officer reached the conclusion that the applicant lacked qualifying work experience.
