Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1036 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Imposed Unjustified English Requirement

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Santokh Singh’s LMIA-supported work permit for a general farm worker position. The officer concluded that his English ability was insufficient to safely operate and maintain farm machinery. The Court granted judicial review because the officer imposed a language requirement not found in the LMIA or occupational description and failed to explain why the applicant’s evidence was inadequate.

Key Principle

A work permit officer may independently assess whether an applicant has sufficient language ability to perform proposed duties, including where safety is involved. However, if the LMIA and occupational requirements impose no language standard, the officer must justify any additional requirement and explain why the applicant’s actual language and work-experience evidence fails to meet it.

Background

The applicant had extensive agricultural experience and received a 12-month offer as a general farm worker. After receiving a procedural fairness letter concerning English ability, he submitted evidence of English-medium education, further English studies, basic-to-moderate reading and writing skills, and practical experience operating and maintaining farm machinery.

Court Findings

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The Court rejected the argument that the officer was required to disclose every concern about the applicant’s English studies. Temporary work permit applications attract a relatively low level of procedural fairness, and the language concern did not involve the credibility, authenticity, or accuracy of submitted information.

• Officer Imposed an Unjustified Language Requirement

Neither the LMIA nor the occupational description required a particular level of English. Although officers retain discretion to assess language ability, the Court found it unreasonable to substitute an additional language requirement without explaining why the actual position required that standard.

• English-Language Evidence Was Not Properly Assessed

The applicant had studied in English at high school and college, completed a software application program taught in English, and stated that he was fluent with basic-to-moderate reading and writing skills. The officer did not explain why this evidence was insufficient for the proposed duties.

• Machinery Experience Was Material Evidence

The applicant also submitted evidence showing practical knowledge of operating and maintaining farm equipment. Because the officer’s stated concern involved machinery operation and safety, this evidence was directly relevant and required meaningful assessment.

• Reasons Failed to Meet Departmental Guidance

Departmental guidance required refusal notes to clearly show a detailed analysis of why the applicant could not perform the work sought. The Court found that the officer’s reasons did not provide that necessary explanation.

• Minister Could Not Add New Reasons on Review

The Minister argued that the applicant’s English education occurred many years earlier. The Court rejected reliance on this point because it was not part of the officer’s reasons and there was no evidence that the applicant had lost his language ability.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and remitted the work permit application to a different officer for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1036 (CanLII)