Gutic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1440 : Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Provide Evidence of English Language Ability Required for the Proposed Employment

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Mirsad Gutic’s work permit application for employment as a concrete finisher. The officer refused the application because the applicant had not demonstrated that he could meet the English language requirements of the proposed job. The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his language ability.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that applicants bear the burden of proving they meet the requirements for a work permit and the proposed employment. Officers are not required to accept unsupported statements or rely solely on an applicant’s assertions. While officers must provide reasonable explanations, courts will not intervene where the decision is based on the evidence before the officer.

Background

The applicant, a foreign national, applied for a work permit to work as a concrete finisher. The prospective employer required oral and written English skills for the position.

The officer refused the application under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient English language ability. The Global Case Management System notes stated that the applicant had failed to provide official language test results, such as IELTS, as proof of English proficiency.

The applicant argued that there was no requirement to provide an official language test and that he had demonstrated his ability through his interactions with the employer and workplace team. He relied on a previous case where employer evidence regarding language ability had been considered relevant.

Court Findings

• Applicant Failed to Prove Language Ability

The Court found that the applicant did not provide evidence demonstrating his English proficiency. Statements from counsel that the applicant had met the employer, understood the work, and communicated well with the team were not evidence of actual language ability.

Justice Pallotta held that it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide evidence showing that he could perform the proposed employment.

• Official Language Test Was Not Mandatory

The Court clarified that the officer was not requiring a specific language test. Although the officer referenced IELTS as an example, the refusal was based on the absence of evidence demonstrating English ability, not the absence of a particular test result.

• Previous Case Was Distinguishable

The Court found that the applicant’s reliance on Choi v Canada was misplaced because, unlike that case, the employer here had not provided a letter confirming confidence in the applicant’s language skills. In any event, officers are not bound by an employer’s assessment of an applicant’s abilities.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the officer reasonably refused the work permit application under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Regulations. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Gutic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1440 (CanLII)