The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Godwin Reginold Navarathnam’s work permit application under the
Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The Sri Lankan applicant had more than 20
years of experience in the restaurant and hospitality industry and had been
offered employment as a Food Service Supervisor at a Pizza Hut in British
Columbia through a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment. The officer
concluded that his English-language ability was insufficient to perform the
job. The Court granted judicial review because the officer did not identify the
applicable language standard or explain why the applicant’s IELTS results
failed to meet the position’s requirements.
Key Principle
Where an applicant provides
objective language test results, an officer who finds the applicant unable to
perform the proposed work must explain how those results are insufficient in
relation to the actual language requirements and duties of the job. A bare
statement that an IELTS score is inadequate, without identifying the standard
applied, the specific deficiencies, or the connection between the scores and
the occupational duties, does not provide a transparent, intelligible, or
justified basis for refusing a work permit.
Background
The applicant had worked in the
food service industry in Sri Lanka for approximately 20 years, including
employment with Pizza Hut since 2018.
He received an offer to work as a
Food Service Supervisor in Parksville, British Columbia. The positive LMIA
identified English as the verbal and written language requirement but did not
specify a minimum IELTS score.
The job duties included
supervising staff, ensuring food quality and service, training employees,
establishing work schedules, and hiring workers.
The applicant submitted IELTS
results showing scores of 4.5 in listening, 4.0 in reading, 4.5 in writing, and
6.0 in speaking, with an overall score of 5.0.
The officer stated that the
applicant did not meet the LMIA’s English requirements and would be unable to
function efficiently or respond to emergencies.
Court Findings
• No Language Standard Was Identified
The Court held that the LMIA required English proficiency but did not specify
any minimum IELTS score or language benchmark. The officer failed to identify
the standard against which the applicant’s English-language ability was
assessed.
• IELTS Results Were Not Meaningfully Assessed
The Court found that the officer merely stated that the applicant’s IELTS score
was inadequate without explaining which language skills were deficient. The
reasons did not show why the applicant’s test results were insufficient to
perform the proposed work.
• Job Duties Were Not Linked to the Language Assessment
The Court held that the officer failed to connect the applicant’s language
scores with the actual duties of a Food Service Supervisor. Without explaining
how the IELTS results affected the applicant’s ability to supervise staff,
communicate, or respond to workplace situations, the conclusion lacked
justification.
• Extensive Experience Required Consideration
The applicant had approximately 20 years of experience in the food service
industry, including several years with Pizza Hut. The Court found that this
important contextual evidence was not meaningfully addressed when assessing
whether he could adequately perform the job.
• Bare Conclusion Rendered the Decision Unreasonable
The Court emphasized that a reasonable decision required more than a general
assertion that the IELTS score was insufficient. Because the officer failed to
provide a transparent explanation linking the evidence to the refusal, the work
permit decision was set aside.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted
judicial review, quashed the work permit refusal, and returned the application
to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Navarathnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1759 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
