Parssian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 304 : CEC Refusal Upheld Because Applicant’s Contractor Work Was Properly Treated as Self-Employment

Outcome: Judicial Review Dismissed

Ø  Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Canadian Experience Class (CEC) permanent residence application because the officer determined that the applicant’s claimed Canadian work experience was self-employment and therefore could not be counted toward the CEC work experience requirement.

The Court upheld the refusal, finding that the officer reasonably relied on the applicant’s own declaration, contractor agreements, and tax documentation showing that he had worked as an independent contractor and self-employed consultant.

Ø  Key Principle

For CEC purposes, self-employment cannot be counted as qualifying Canadian work experience under paragraph 87.1(3)(b) of the IRPR.

An officer is not required to discuss every factor listed in administrative guidelines where the evidence clearly establishes that the applicant was self-employed. The guidelines may assist officers but do not have the force of law and do not replace the requirements of the IRPR.

The case also confirms that procedural fairness does not generally require an officer to give an applicant an opportunity to respond where the concern arises directly from the requirements of the legislation and the officer is not questioning the credibility or genuineness of the applicant’s evidence.

Ø  Background

The applicant applied for permanent residence under the CEC based on work experience as an information systems consultant for Canadian Tire and TD Canada Trust.

In his application, he expressly indicated that he had been self-employed and explained that he worked for the companies through recruiting agencies. His supporting agreements also described him as a self-employed individual or independent contractor.

The officer determined that this work experience could not be counted because it constituted self-employment. The applicant argued that the officer should have applied all of the factors contained in the CEC guidelines and should have given him an opportunity to respond to the concern.

Ø  Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer’s decision was reasonable.

The Court noted that the applicant’s own application identified him as self-employed, while the contracts described him as a “self-employed” individual and “independent contractor.” His T4 also identified his consulting business as his employer.

The Court held that the guidelines did not require the officer to consider every listed factor where the evidence already provided a reasonable basis to conclude that the applicant was self-employed.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness. The officer had not questioned the credibility, accuracy, or genuineness of the applicant’s documents. Rather, the officer applied the statutory requirement that self-employment cannot be counted toward CEC eligibility. The applicant’s disagreement with how the officer interpreted his employment documents did not create a right to a further opportunity to respond.

Ø  Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the CEC refusal.

Case Citation:

Parssian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 304 CanLII