The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP)
application based on an officer’s conclusion that the applicant was not a
full-time student during one academic semester. The Court allowed the judicial
review, finding that the officer ignored critical evidence from the applicant’s
university and failed to exercise the “best judgment” required by the PGWP
policy. The case is an important authority for students who temporarily reduce
their course load due to exceptional personal circumstances.
Key
Principle
The
Court reaffirmed that PGWP officers must consider relevant evidence from
educational institutions regarding a student’s enrollment status and must
exercise their best judgment when assessing compliance with study permit
conditions. Ignoring evidence that directly contradicts a finding of part-time
status renders a decision unreasonable.
Background
Irena
Tcerkovnaia, a Russian citizen, studied at Ryerson University (now Toronto
Metropolitan University). During the Winter 2017 semester, she experienced
significant personal stress arising from the illness of a family member.
Although she initially enrolled as a full-time student, she later withdrew from
two courses after performing poorly on midterm examinations. Despite those
withdrawals, Ryerson University continued to regard her as a full-time student
for that semester.
After
completing her Bachelor of Commerce degree, she applied for a PGWP. IRCC
refused the application on the basis that she had not maintained full-time
student status throughout her studies. She then requested reconsideration and
submitted a letter from Ryerson University confirming that she had been
enrolled full-time during Winter 2017 and that the course withdrawals occurred
within university rules due to circumstances beyond her control. The officer
nevertheless maintained the refusal.
Court
Findings
The
Federal Court found the refusal unreasonable. Justice Go held that the officer
failed to consider the university’s letter, which directly contradicted the
officer’s conclusion that the applicant was not a full-time student. While the
officer referred to transcripts and course credits, the reasons did not address
the university’s explicit statement that it considered the applicant to have
maintained full-time status during the semester.
The
Court emphasized that although PGWP eligibility requirements are generally
mandatory, the applicable policy instructs officers to exercise their best
judgment and consider all relevant factors when assessing compliance with
study permit conditions. The applicant had provided a reasonable explanation
for the course withdrawals and evidence that the university accepted those
circumstances while continuing to classify her as a full-time student. The
officer failed to meaningfully consider this evidence.
Justice
Go also noted that the officer relied on the university’s definition of
full-time enrollment to justify the refusal, yet ignored the university’s own
determination that the applicant remained a full-time student. This
inconsistency undermined the reasonableness of the decision.
The
Federal Court granted the judicial review, set aside the PGWP refusal, and
returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination.
Case Citation: Tcerkovnaia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 861 (CanLII)
