Date: 20100209
Docket: IMM-3881-09
Citation: 2010 FC 134
Ottawa, Ontario, February 9,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
LAKHWINDER
KHELA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Based
on the Dunsmuir v. New-Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190
decision, justification for a Visa Officer’s decision becomes self evident
through evidence that often only a first-instance decision-maker would have
heard and/or seen.
Without due
regard or deference to the finder of fact, based on documented evidence, a
Court would merely arrive at conclusions based on speculation, thereby, potentially
setting aside the analysis of a first-instance decision-maker without
substantial regard for the evidence.
It is for the
evidence to be allowed to speak for itself. It is for the evidence to show
rather than for a judgment simply to tell; if the evidence is self-evident, it
is important for a first-instance decision-maker to bring forward that evidence
and that the evidence, itself, before a first-instance decision-maker, be
acknowledged with deference by this Court rather than for this Court to
editorialize and comment in abstraction. Basically, it is for a Court to get out
of the way of the evidence as heard and/or seen by a first-instance
decision-maker, and then if properly identified by a first-instance
decision-maker in his decision, allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
II. Introduction
[2]
This
is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of a decision of the
Immigration Section of the Consulate General of Canada in Chandigarh, India,
refusing the Applicant’s application for a Work Permit under the Live-In
Caregiver Class (LICC).
III. Background
[3]
In
March of 2006, the Applicant, Mr. Lakhwinder Khela, applied to the Consulate
General of Canada for a Work Permit under the Live-In Caregiver Class. On July
14, 2009, Mr. Khela was interviewed by an Officer of the Canadian Consulate to
determine his suitability for the LICC. At the conclusion of the interview, the
Officer verbally advised Mr. Khela that his application was denied. This
decision was followed by written reasons received by Mr. Khela on August 6,
2009.
IV. Decision under Review
[4]
The
letter advising Mr. Khela of the reasons for the denial states that despite his
completion of a training course related to performing the work of a Live-In
Caregiver (the Applicant received a diploma from the Nawanshahar, India branch
of the Surrey Business and Technology College in 2005), he was unable to
demonstrate that he had sufficient knowledge and skills to adequately provide
care without supervision (Decision at p. 1).
V. Issues
[5]
1)
Did the Officer err by questioning the Applicant’s child-care credentials?
2) Was the Visa Officer’s
decision that there were reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant could not
perform the work of a Live-In Caregiver unreasonable?
VI. Relevant Legislative Provisions
[6]
“Live-In
Caregiver” is defined in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (Regulations):
|
“live-in
caregiver”
« aide
familial »
“live-in caregiver” means a person who resides in and provides
child care, senior home support care or care of the disabled without
supervision in the private household in Canada where the
person being cared for resides.
|
« aide
familial »
“live-in
caregiver”
« aide familial » Personne
qui fournit sans supervision des soins à domicile à un enfant, à une personne
âgée ou à une personne handicapée, dans une résidence privée située au Canada
où résident à la fois la personne bénéficiant des soins et celle qui les
prodigue.
|
[7]
A
prospective “Live-In Caregiver” must receive a work permit before entering Canada pursuant to
section 111 of the Regulations and must meet the requirements contained in
section 112 before that permit is issued:
|
Processing
111.
A foreign national who seeks to enter Canada as a live-in caregiver must make an
application for a work permit in accordance with Part 11 and apply for a
temporary resident visa if such a visa is required by Part 9.
Work permits — requirements
112. A work
permit shall not be issued to a foreign national who seeks to enter Canada as a live-in caregiver
unless they
(a) applied for a
work permit as a live-in caregiver before entering Canada;
(b) have successfully
completed a course of study that is equivalent to the successful completion
of secondary school in Canada;
(c) have the
following training or experience, in a field or occupation related to the
employment for which the work permit is sought, namely,
(i) successful completion of six
months of full-time training in a classroom setting, or
(ii) completion of one year
of full-time paid employment, including at least six months of continuous
employment with one employer, in such a field or occupation within the three
years immediately before the day on which they submit an application for a
work permit;
(d) have the ability
to speak, read and listen to English or French at a level sufficient to
communicate effectively in an unsupervised setting; and
(e) have an employment
contract with their future employer.
|
Traitement
111. L’étranger qui cherche à
entrer au Canada à titre d’aide familial fait une demande de permis de
travail conformément à la partie 11, ainsi qu’une demande de visa de résident
temporaire si ce visa est requis par la partie 9.
Permis de travail : exigences
112.
Le permis de travail ne peut être délivré à l’étranger qui cherche à entrer
au Canada au titre de la catégorie des aides familiaux que si l’étranger se
conforme aux exigences suivantes :
a) il a fait une demande de
permis de travail à titre d’aide familial avant d’entrer au Canada;
b) il a terminé avec succès
des études d’un niveau équivalent à des études secondaires terminées avec
succès au Canada;
c) il a la formation ou
l’expérience ci-après dans un domaine ou une catégorie d’emploi lié au
travail pour lequel le permis de travail est demandé :
(i) une formation à temps plein
de six mois en salle de classe, terminée avec succès,
(ii) une année d’emploi
rémunéré à temps plein — dont au moins six mois d’emploi continu auprès d’un
même employeur — dans ce domaine ou cette catégorie d’emploi au cours des
trois années précédant la date de présentation de la demande de permis de
travail;
d) il peut parler, lire et
écouter l’anglais ou le français suffisamment pour communiquer de façon
efficace dans une situation non supervisée;
e) il a conclu un contrat
d’emploi avec son futur employeur.
|
[8]
A
“Live-In Caregiver” applicant must meet the requirements set out above and must
not fall within the exclusions under subsection 200(3) of the Regulations:
|
Exceptions
(3) An officer shall not
issue a work permit to a foreign national if
(a) there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform
the work sought;
(b) in the case of a
foreign national who intends to work in the Province of Quebec and does not
hold a Certificat d'acceptation du Québec, a determination under
section 203 is required and the laws of that Province require that the
foreign national hold a Certificat d'acceptation du Québec;
(c) the specific work
that the foreign national intends to perform is likely to adversely affect
the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the employment of any
person involved in the dispute, unless all or almost all of the workers
involved in the labour dispute are not Canadian citizens or permanent
residents and the hiring of workers to replace the workers involved in the
labour dispute is not prohibited by the Canadian law applicable in the
province where the workers involved in the labour dispute are employed;
(d) the foreign national
seeks to enter Canada as a live-in caregiver and
the foreign national does not meet the requirements of section 112; or
(e) the foreign
national has engaged in unauthorized study or work in Canada or has failed to comply
with a condition of a previous permit or authorization unless
(i) a period of six months
has elapsed since the cessation of the unauthorized work or study or failure
to comply with a condition,
(ii) the study or work was
unauthorized by reason only that the foreign national did not comply with
conditions imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i)
to (iii) or paragraph 185(c);
(iii) section 206 applies to
them; or
(iv) the foreign national
was subsequently issued a temporary resident permit under subsection 24(1) of
the Act.
|
Exceptions
(3) Le permis de travail ne
peut être délivré à l’étranger dans les cas suivants :
a) l’agent a des motifs
raisonnables de croire que l’étranger est incapable d’exercer l’emploi pour
lequel le permis de travail est demandé;
b) l’étranger qui cherche à
travailler dans la province de Québec ne détient pas le certificat
d’acceptation qu’exige la législation de cette province et est assujetti à la
décision prévue à l’article 203;
c) le travail spécifique pour
lequel l’étranger demande le permis est susceptible de nuire au règlement de
tout conflit de travail en cours ou à l’emploi de toute personne touchée par
ce conflit, à moins que la totalité ou la quasi-totalité des salariés touchés
par le conflit de travail ne soient ni des citoyens canadiens ni des
résidents permanents et que l’embauche de salariés pour les remplacer ne soit
pas interdite par le droit canadien applicable dans la province où
travaillent les salariés visés;
d) l’étranger cherche à
entrer au Canada et à faire partie de la catégorie des aides familiaux, à
moins qu’il ne se conforme à l’article 112;
e) il a poursuivi des études
ou exercé un emploi au Canada sans autorisation ou permis ou a enfreint les
conditions de l’autorisation ou du permis qui lui a été délivré, sauf dans
les cas suivants :
(i) une période de six mois
s’est écoulée depuis les faits reprochés,
(ii) ses études ou son
travail n’ont pas été autorisés pour la seule raison que les conditions
visées à l’alinéa 185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i) à (iii) ou à
l’alinéa 185c) n’ont pas été respectées,
(iii) il est visé par
l’article 206,
(iv) il s’est subséquemment vu délivrer
un permis de séjour temporaire au titre du paragraphe 24(1) de la Loi.
|
VII. Relevant
Positions of the Parties
Applicant’s
Position
Issue 1: Did the Officer
err by questioning the Applicant’s child-care credentials?
[9]
Mr. Khela
submits
that the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes of the
interview show the Officer had doubts about Mr. Khela’s training. Specifically,
the Officer wrote that Mr. Khela’s documentation was “questionable” because it
appeared that the program had been completed in Canada. Mr. Khela contends
it is unreasonable to refuse a work permit on the grounds that he completed the
program through an overseas branch of a Canadian college.
Issue 2: Was the Visa Officer’s
decision that there were reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant could not
perform the work of a Live-In Caregiver unreasonable?
[10]
Mr.
Khela
submits it was unreasonable for the Officer to come to the conclusion that he
could not perform the work of a “Live-In Caregiver” in an unsupervised
environment based on the answers he gave to certain situational questions asked
by the Officer. Specifically, Mr. Khela states that the Officer should have
accepted his answers to questions relating to first-aid of an injured child and
care of a diapered infant, as they were appropriate in the circumstances.
Respondent’s Position
Issue 1: Did the Officer
err by questioning the Applicant’s child-care credentials?
[11]
The
Respondent contends it is clear from the letter sent to Mr. Khela that the Officer
did not refuse to issue a work permit because of doubts regarding Mr. Khela’s
credentials. The Respondent cites the CAIPS notes to show that the Officer had
a concern, put this concern to Mr. Khela and refused to issue a work permit
because of Mr. Khela’s responses to situational questions.
Issue 2: Was the Visa Officer’s
decision that there were reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant could not
perform the work of a Live-In Caregiver unreasonable?
[12]
With
respect to Mr. Khela’s concerns regarding his answers to the Officer’s
questions, the Respondent cites the cases of Corpuz v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 857, 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 779 and Bondoc
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 842, 170
A.C.W.S. (3d) 173 for the proposition that it is not unreasonable for a
Visa Officer to assess whether a “Live-In Caregiver” applicant is capable of
performing the required duties. The Respondent specifies that Mr. Khela’s
responses to the Officer’s questions regarding first-aid and child care
demonstrated little knowledge in these important areas.
[13]
After
the interview, Mr. Khela made notes from memory of the questions asked and the
answers given; he cites from these notes and states that the questions asked
and the answers given, according to his statement of those questions and
answers, show that he gave correct answers to the questions regarding first-aid
of an injured child.
VIII. Standard
of Review
[14]
In
the case of Bondoc, above, the Federal Court held that a Visa Officer’s
determination of an application for a work permit under the LICC is a question
of fact and, therefore, the standard of review is reasonableness.
[15]
The
standard of reasonableness is concerned with the existence of “justification,
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process”, as well
as “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes
which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” A court undertaking a
review under the standard of reasonableness must be cognizant of the fact that
“certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend
themselves to one specific, particular result” (Dunsmuir, above, at
para. 47).
IX. Analysis
Issue 1: Did the Officer
err by questioning the Applicant’s child-care credentials?
[16]
The
letter sent to Mr. Khela shows that the Officer’s reason for refusing to issue
a work permit is that she was not satisfied that he could perform the work
sought, in spite of his completion of a training course. The Court notes that
the refusal letter also contains an option for the Visa Officer to refuse to
issue a work permit because an applicant had not completed six months of
full-time training in a classroom setting; because this option is unchecked, it
appears that the sole ground for refusal is Mr. Khela’s failure to demonstrate
sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the work (Decision at p. 1). The
Court understands that the CAIPS notes show the Officer had concerns regarding Mr.
Khela’s credentials, but the decision letter is clear with regard to why the work
permit was not issued.
Issue 2: Was the Visa Officer’s
decision that there were reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant could not
perform the work of a Live-In Caregiver unreasonable?
[17]
With
respect
to the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision, the Court notes that the
exceptions in subsection 200(3) of the Regulations state that an Officer shall
not issue a work permit to a foreign national if “there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to
perform the work sought”. In the case of Bondoc, above, the court held
that it is the Visa Officer who must be satisfied that the requirements
for the issuance of a work permit are met and that it is therefore reasonable
for Visa Officers to conduct an assessment of an applicant’s abilities (Bondoc,
above, at para. 24).
[18]
The
Court is faced with two accounts of the interview, the contemporaneous CAIPS
notes and Mr. Khela’s recollections which were written after he left the
interview. The Court notes that these two accounts of the interview are
inconsistent with one another, especially with regard to the questions relating
to Mr. Khela’s knowledge of first-aid and child care. The Court concludes that
it must rely on the CAIPS notes for two reasons; first, they were made during
the interview and second, the Court concludes that it ought not to doubt the
veracity of the CAIPS records in the absence of compelling evidence that they
are incorrect, which is absent in this case.
X. Conclusion
[19]
It
is the Court’s conclusion that the Officer’s decision was reasonable. It is
clear, both from the CAIPS notes and Mr. Khela’s statement, that the Officer
asked relevant questions and was not satisfied with the answers. Although Visa
Officers do not have unlimited discretion to refuse to issue work permits, the
Court must be mindful that it is to show deference to the Officer’s reasoning
and must only intervene if an Officer makes a decision without regard to the
material before him or her or comes to a conclusion that is not reasonably supported
by the evidence. In this case, the CAIPS notes show that Mr. Khela gave answers
that are not demonstrative of a reasonable level of first-aid knowledge: to wit, to pick up an
unconscious child found at the bottom of the stairs and to carry the child,
place that child on a table and tell him everything is OK, does not constitute
an understanding of first-aid. The Officer’s decision is reasonable as it clearly
demonstrates on the face of the evidence, justification, transparency and
intelligibility within the jurisdiction of a first-instance decision-making
process.
[20]
For
all the above reasons, the application
for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS that
1.
The application for judicial
review be dismissed;
2.
No serious question
of general importance be certified.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content