Sangha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 309 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Trucking Qualifications

The Federal Court reviewed Harvinder Singh Sangha’s work permit refusal for a long-haul truck driver position. The officer found he had not demonstrated an ability to perform the work. The Court held the decision unreasonable because the reasons did not meaningfully assess his qualifications and relied on unnecessary salary-deposit evidence.

Key Principle

A work permit officer may assess whether an applicant can perform the proposed work, but the analysis must be tied to the occupational requirements and evidence submitted. Relevant education, training, licences, and employment evidence cannot be disregarded without explanation.

Background

The applicant, a 36-year-old Indian citizen, applied for a long-haul truck driver work permit supported by a British Columbia job offer and LMIA. He submitted UAE truck-driving reference letters, training certificates, Indian and UAE licences, an IELTS score of 6.5, secondary-school credentials, and a signed job offer. The officer refused without an interview.

Court Findings

• Employment Evidence Was Accepted but Then Discounted

The officer appeared to accept the reference letters and salary certificates documenting the applicant’s truck-driving employment. Despite this, the officer questioned the experience because there were no salary deposits or transfers and because additional older employment documents were absent. The Court found the reasoning inconsistent because the officer did not explain why those additional records were necessary.

• Occupational Requirements Did Not Demand Work Experience

The applicable occupational description did not require prior work experience. It stated that secondary-school completion, driver training, and appropriate licences might be required. The applicant submitted evidence addressing those requirements, yet the officer’s reasons did not meaningfully engage with those documents.

• Relevant Education and Training Were Overlooked

The applicant provided a higher-secondary certificate, driving and road-safety training certificates, and valid driving licences from India and the UAE. These materials were directly relevant to whether he could perform the proposed work. The officer’s reasons did not reference them, leaving no intelligible explanation for concluding that he lacked the necessary competence.

• Salary Deposit Evidence Was Unnecessarily Elevated

The refusal effectively made proof of salary deposits central to establishing employment experience. The Court found this unreasonable because such proof was not an occupational requirement and the applicant had already provided reference letters and salary documentation. The officer did not justify why bank-transfer evidence was needed before accepting the work history.

• Respondent Could Not Supply Missing Reasons

The Respondent argued that the documents did not adequately demonstrate the required skills and experience. The Court rejected this attempt to add justification not contained in the officer’s reasons. The decision itself lacked the necessary clarity and analysis connecting the evidence to the conclusion.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach

The Court rejected the fairness argument. Work permit applications attract a low level of procedural fairness, and the concerns related to evidentiary sufficiency rather than credibility, authenticity, or accuracy. Because the applicant bore the burden of submitting sufficient evidence, the officer was not required to provide another opportunity to supplement the record.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and remitted the work permit application to a different officer for reconsideration. The refusal was unreasonable, but there was no procedural fairness breach. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Sangha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 309 (CanLII)