Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 296 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Overlooked Submitted Language Ability Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Surjit Singh’s work permit application after an officer concluded that he had failed to comply with a request for proof of English language ability. The record showed that the applicant had in fact submitted detailed written submissions and supporting evidence addressing his language proficiency. The Court found the refusal unreasonable because this material was not considered.

Key Principle

A work permit refusal cannot reasonably be based on an applicant’s alleged failure to respond where the applicant actually submitted evidence and submissions addressing the officer’s concern. When material evidence is properly filed, the decision-maker must consider it before concluding that the applicant failed to comply with a document request or failed to demonstrate an employment requirement.

Background

The applicant had previously obtained judicial review of an earlier work permit refusal, and the application was returned for redetermination. During that process, the officer verified his proposed employment and ultimately accepted that the employer and job offer appeared genuine. The officer later requested IELTS or CELPIP results and other proof of English language ability.

Through counsel, the applicant responded before the extended deadline. He explained that neither the LMIA nor the employer required formal English proficiency, submitted an affidavit from the prospective employer confirming satisfaction with his English and Punjabi abilities, and provided educational documents as alternative proof of language ability.

Court Findings

• Applicant Had Responded to the Language Request

The GCMS notes stated that the applicant “did not respond” to the request for IELTS or CELPIP results. However, the record demonstrated that counsel had filed a detailed response addressing the applicant’s English ability and the language requirements of the specific carpenter position.

• Officer’s Request Was Not Limited Exclusively to IELTS or CELPIP

Although the request letter specifically mentioned IELTS and CELPIP, it also asked the applicant to submit proof of English language ability more generally. The applicant therefore responded with alternative evidence, including sworn employer evidence, written legal submissions, a secondary school certificate, and trade-training materials.

• Material Evidence Was Not Considered

The Court concluded that the March 12, 2021 response simply did not reach the officer and was also absent from the Certified Tribunal Record. Because the refusal was expressly based on non-compliance, the failure to consider evidence demonstrating that the applicant had responded was central to the decision.

• Officer Was Required to Assess the Evidence Before Refusing

The Court held that substantive reasonableness required the officer to consider the applicant’s filed evidence and submissions before deciding whether he had complied with the language request. A refusal based on the premise that no response was submitted could not stand when the record established otherwise.

• Costs Threshold Was Not Met

The applicant requested costs because this was his second successful challenge and he had previously commenced mandamus proceedings merely to obtain the delayed refusal decision. The Court acknowledged the circumstances but found no special reasons justifying costs because there was no evidence of bad faith, oppressive conduct, or unreasonable prolongation of the litigation.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal, and ordered prompt redetermination by a different decision-maker based on all evidence and submissions in the record. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 296 (CanLII)