Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 422 : Work Permit Misrepresentation Finding Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Assess Innocent Mistake

The Federal Court reviewed Baljinder Singh’s work permit refusal and five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation. The officer concluded that his long-haul truck driver job offer was not genuine and that submitting it constituted a material misrepresentation. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the innocent-mistake exception.

Key Principle

A misrepresentation finding may arise even without an intent to mislead. However, where the evidence reasonably raises the narrow innocent-mistake exception, the officer must assess whether the applicant honestly believed no misrepresentation was being made and whether that belief was objectively reasonable.

Background
The applicant applied for a work permit supported by a positive LMIA and an offer from New Millenium Transport Ltd. After concerns arose about the employer’s capacity, IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter. The applicant provided employer documents. The officer concluded the company could not fulfill the employment terms, found the offer non-genuine, and imposed a five-year misrepresentation bar.

Court Findings

• Non-Genuine Offer and Misrepresentation Were Distinct Issues

The Court accepted that the officer could assess whether the job offer was genuine by examining the employer’s financial capacity and employment needs. However, determining that the offer was non-genuine did not itself answer whether the applicant had made a misrepresentation. The officer had to separately consider the innocent-mistake issue once it was reasonably raised.

• Innocent-Mistake Exception Was Legally Available

The Court confirmed that misrepresentation can include innocent or third-party errors, but jurisprudence recognizes a narrow exception where an applicant honestly and reasonably believes that material information has not been withheld or misstated. Failure to analyze that exception can be reviewable when the record contains evidence supporting its application.

• Officer Conducted No Subjective Analysis

The officer never assessed whether the applicant honestly believed the employment offer was genuine when submitted. The concerns arose from financial and operational information belonging to an arm’s-length employer, information the applicant said he did not know before the procedural fairness process. The reasons did not address his state of knowledge.

• Officer Conducted No Objective Analysis

The decision also failed to examine whether the applicant’s belief in the offer’s genuineness was objectively reasonable. The officer focused on the employer’s payroll, staffing, and financial ability, but those findings did not establish whether the applicant reasonably could have known about those deficiencies when he applied.

• Procedural Fairness Response Raised the Exception

The applicant’s response expressed surprise that the employer’s genuineness was questioned, emphasized that the requested information belonged to the employer, and argued that he should not suffer inadmissibility because of concerns about the employer’s business capacity. The Respondent acknowledged these submissions implicitly raised the absence of intent to misrepresent.

• Failure to Consider the Exception Was Determinative

The Court did not hold that the innocent-mistake exception necessarily applied. Rather, the applicant’s submissions and the third-party nature of the disputed information required a meaningful analysis. Because none occurred, the misrepresentation finding lacked justification and the decision was unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal and misrepresentation decision, and remitted the matter to another officer for redetermination. The Court did not address the remaining arguments. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 422 (CanLII)