Jandu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1787 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Misassessed Employer Finances and Job Genuineness

Six applicants challenged refusals of LMIA-based work permits for long-haul truck driver positions with Daytona Freight Systems. Three applicants also challenged findings of misrepresentation arising from allegedly non-genuine employment offers. The Court found all six refusals unreasonable and quashed the three misrepresentation findings.

Key Principle

A positive LMIA does not prevent an officer from independently assessing whether a job offer is genuine. However, where concerns relate primarily to an employer’s finances and operations, the assessment must account for the LMIA process and cannot reasonably depend on speculative calculations or information that prospective employees could not be expected to know. Misrepresentation also requires clear and convincing evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged falsehood.

Background

All six applicants had offers to work as long-haul truck drivers for Daytona, which had obtained positive LMIAs. IRCC questioned Daytona’s financial ability to employ them and concluded the offers were not genuine. Three applicants were additionally found inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The applicants received interview letters specifically advising that IRCC would assess the genuineness of the job offers, work experience, language ability, and ability to perform the work. They were also permitted to provide additional documentation. The Court therefore found they knew the case to meet despite some applicants not receiving separate procedural fairness letters.

• Financial Analysis Was Speculative

IRCC compared financial records from different years, failed to distinguish employees from contractors, and relied on calculations that did not accurately reflect Daytona’s business structure. These errors directly supported the conclusion that Daytona lacked the capacity to pay the applicants and were therefore central to the refusals.

• Employer or ESDC Should Have Been Consulted

Daytona had already provided extensive business and financial information during the LMIA process. Rather than seeking clarification from Daytona or ESDC, IRCC expected prospective foreign workers to answer detailed questions about confidential corporate finances and operations. The Court found this approach unreasonable because the employer and ESDC were better positioned to address those concerns.

• Wrong Regulatory Context Undermined the Analysis

The officer referred to provisions and guidance associated with LMIA-exempt work permits despite the existence of positive LMIAs. The Court found this created uncertainty about whether IRCC properly accounted for the prior employer assessment conducted by ESDC.

• Misrepresentation Findings Were Unsupported

The three Group 1 applicants were found inadmissible without clear and convincing evidence that they knew the job offers were non-genuine. Their interview responses did not establish knowledge of any fraud, and a finding that an employer’s offer is non-genuine does not automatically establish misrepresentation by the worker.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted all six applications, quashed the three misrepresentation findings, and remitted the work permit applications for redetermination by another officer. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Jandu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1787 (CanLII)