Docket: IMM-3527-16
Citation:
2017 FC 273
Ottawa, Ontario, March 14, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SKY BLUE
TRANSPORT LTD
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision by an
officer of Employment and Social Development Canada [the Officer] refusing the
Applicant’s application for a Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA]. The
negative decision was based on the lack of “genuineness”
of the job offer due the excessive experience requirement for the job: the
requirement that long-haul truck drivers have 1-2 years of experience.
[2]
The pertinent provision of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations], is s 203:
|
203 (1) On application under Division
2 for a work permit made by a foreign national other than a foreign national
referred to in subparagraphs 200(1)(c)(i) to (ii.1), an officer must
determine, on the basis of an assessment provided by the Department of
Employment and Social Development, of any information provided on the
officer’s request by the employer making the offer and of any other relevant
information, if
|
203 (1)
Sur présentation d’une demande de permis de travail conformément à la section
2 par tout étranger, autre que celui visé à l’un des sous-alinéas 200(1)c)(i)
à (ii.1), l’agent décide, en se fondant sur l’évaluation du ministère de
l’Emploi et du Développement social, sur tout renseignement fourni, à la
demande de l’agent, par l’employeur qui présente l’offre d’emploi et sur tout
autre renseignement pertinent, si, à la fois :
|
|
(a) the job offer is genuine under subsection 200(5);
|
a) l’offre d’emploi est authentique
conformément au paragraphe 200(5);
|
|
(b) the employment of the foreign national is likely to have a
neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada;
|
b) le travail de l’étranger est susceptible
d’avoir des effets positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien;
|
|
(c) the issuance of a work permit would not be inconsistent with the
terms of any federal-provincial agreement that apply to the employers of
foreign nationals;
|
c) la délivrance du permis de travail
respecte les conditions prévues dans l’accord fédéral-provincial applicable
aux employeurs qui embauchent des travailleurs étrangers;
|
|
(d) in the case of a foreign national who seeks to enter Canada as a
live-in caregiver,
|
d) s’agissant d’un étranger qui cherche à
entrer au Canada à titre d’aide familial :
|
|
(i) the foreign national will reside in a private household in Canada
and provide child care, senior home support care or care of a disabled person
in that household without supervision,
|
(i) il habitera dans une résidence privée au
Canada et y fournira sans supervision des soins à un enfant ou à une personne
âgée ou handicapée,
|
|
(ii) the employer will provide the foreign national with adequate
furnished and private accommodations in the household, and
|
(ii) son employeur lui fournira, dans la
résidence, un logement privé meublé qui est adéquat,
|
|
(iii) the employer has sufficient financial resources to pay the
foreign national the wages that are offered to the foreign national; and
|
(iii) son employeur possède les ressources
financières suffisantes pour lui verser le salaire offert;
|
|
(e) the employer
|
e) l’employeur, selon le cas :
|
|
(i) during the period beginning six years before the day on which the
request for an assessment under subsection (2) is received by the Department
of Employment and Social Development and ending on the day on which the application
for the work permit is received by the Department, provided each foreign
national employed by the employer with employment in the same occupation as
that set out in the foreign national’s offer of employment and with wages and
working conditions that were substantially the same as — but not less
favourable than — those set out in that offer, or
|
(i) au cours de la période commençant six ans
avant la date de la réception, par le ministère de l’Emploi et du
Développement social, de la demande d’évaluation visée au paragraphe (2) et
se terminant à la date de réception de la demande de permis de travail par le
ministère, a confié à tout étranger à son service un emploi dans la même
profession que celle précisée dans l’offre d’emploi et lui a versé un salaire
et ménagé des conditions de travail qui étaient essentiellement les mêmes —
mais non moins avantageux — que ceux précisés dans l’offre,
|
|
(ii) is able to justify, under subsection (1.1), any failure to
satisfy the criteria set out in subparagraph (i).
|
(ii) peut justifier le non-respect des
critères prévus au sous-alinéa (i) au titre du paragraphe (1.1).
|
|
…
|
…
|
|
(3) An assessment provided by the
Department of Employment and Social Development with respect to the matters
referred to in paragraph (1)(b) shall, unless the employment of the foreign
national is unlikely to have a positive or neutral effect on the labour
market in Canada as a result of the application of subsection (1.01), be
based on the following factors:
|
(3) Le
ministère de l’Emploi et du Développement social fonde son évaluation
relative aux éléments visés à l’alinéa (1)b) sur les facteurs ci-après, sauf
dans les cas où le travail de l’étranger n’est pas susceptible d’avoir des
effets positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien en raison de
l’application du paragraphe (1.01) :
|
|
(a) whether the employment of the foreign national will or is likely
to result in direct job creation or job retention for Canadian citizens or
permanent residents;
|
a) le travail de l’étranger entraînera ou est
susceptible d’entraîner la création directe ou le maintien d’emplois pour des
citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
|
|
(b) whether the employment of the foreign national will or is likely
to result in the development or transfer of skills and knowledge for the
benefit of Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
|
b) le travail de l’étranger entraînera ou
est susceptible d’entraîner le développement ou le transfert de compétences
ou de connaissances au profit des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents
permanents;
|
|
(c) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to fill
a labour shortage;
|
c) le travail de l’étranger est susceptible
de résorber une pénurie de main-d’oeuvre;
|
|
(d) whether the wages offered to the foreign national are consistent
with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and whether the working
conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards;
|
d) le salaire offert à l’étranger correspond
aux taux de salaires courants pour cette profession et les conditions de
travail qui lui sont offertes satisfont aux normes canadiennes généralement
acceptées;
|
|
(e) whether the employer will hire or train Canadian citizens or
permanent residents or has made, or has agreed to make, reasonable efforts to
do so;
|
e) l’employeur embauchera ou formera des
citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents, ou a fait ou accepté de faire
des efforts raisonnables à cet effet;
|
|
(f) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to
adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the
employment of any person involved in the dispute; and
|
f) le travail de l’étranger est susceptible
de nuire au règlement d’un conflit de travail en cours ou à l’emploi de toute
personne touchée par ce conflit;
|
|
(g) whether the employer has fulfilled or has made reasonable efforts
to fulfill any commitments made, in the context of any assessment that was
previously provided under subsection (2), with respect to the matters
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e).
|
g) l’employeur a respecté ou a fait des
efforts raisonnables pour respecter tout engagement pris dans le cadre d’une
évaluation précédemment fournie en application du paragraphe (2) relativement
aux facteurs visés aux alinéas a), b) et e).
|
|
[Emphasis added]
|
[Je souligne]
|
[3]
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27, and the Regulations set out a regime under which Canadian
employers can hire temporary foreign workers to address skill and labour
shortages. The requirements in s 203(1) must be satisfied for an officer to issue
a work permit. The relevant requirement in this case, paragraph (a), has been
underlined above.
[4]
The determination of whether an offer of
employment is genuine is governed by s 200(5) of the Regulations:
|
200 (5) A determination of whether an
offer of employment is genuine shall be based on the following factors:
|
200 (5)
L’évaluation de l’authenticité de l’offre d’emploi est fondée sur les
facteurs suivants :
|
|
(a) whether the offer is made by an employer that is actively engaged
in the business in respect of which the offer is made, unless the offer is
made for employment as a live-in caregiver;
|
a) l’offre est présentée par un employeur
véritablement actif dans l’entreprise à l’égard de laquelle elle est faite,
sauf si elle vise un emploi d’aide familial;
|
|
(b) whether the offer is consistent with the reasonable employment
needs of the employer;
|
b) l’offre correspond aux besoins légitimes
en main-d’oeuvre de l’employeur;
|
|
(c) whether the terms of the offer are terms that the employer is
reasonably able to fulfil; and
|
c) l’employeur peut raisonnablement
respecter les conditions de l’offre;
|
|
(d) the past compliance of the employer, or any person who recruited
the foreign national for the employer, with the federal or provincial laws
that regulate employment, or the recruiting of employees, in the province in
which it is intended that the foreign national work.
|
d) l’employeur – ou la personne qui recrute
des travailleurs étrangers en son nom – s’est conformé aux lois et aux
règlements fédéraux et provinciaux régissant le travail ou le recrutement de
main-d’oeuvre dans la province où il est prévu que l’étranger travaillera.
|
[5]
The employment positions for which LMIAs are
sought are classified within occupational groupings in the National
Occupational Classification [NOC] system. Guidelines are issued to assist
officers in deciding, on a case by case basis, whether occupational
requirements are consistent with experience requirements listed in the NOC.
II.
Factual Background
[6]
Mr. Ranjit Bhangoo is the director and employer contact
of the Applicant. He posted job advertisements in January 2016 seeking long-haul
truck drivers with at least 1-2 years of experience. He was able to hire only
one suitable Canadian candidate.
[7]
On July 28, 2016, the Officer conducted a pre-assessment
telephone interview with Bhangoo. The Officer questioned the rationale for the
job requirement of 1-2 years of experience. Bhangoo explained that it was a
requirement of the insurance provider as well as a risk reduction strategy with
respect to the concern of “handing over trucks to new
drivers”.
There
is some question as to whether Bhangoo raised the safety concern of drivers
operating vehicles through mountains and in snowy conditions.
[8]
In written submissions to the Officer on July
29, 2016, Bhangoo reiterated the existence of the written contract with the
insurer regarding driver qualifications. The insurance policy required three
years of driving experience, but a minimum of one year of driving experience was
required to be covered under premium policies. (The difference between the
insurance requirement and the job experience was never explained.) The effect
is that insurance for drivers with less than one year of experience is not
available and insurance for drivers with between 1‑3 years of
experience is more costly.
[9]
The Officer refused the LMIA application on
August 4, 2016, citing:
•
failure to demonstrate sufficient efforts to
hire Canadians in the occupation; and
•
insufficient demonstration of a reasonable
employment need for this job at the business.
The Officer found
that although experience is an asset, the 1-2 years of experience requirement
was not a bona fide occupational requirement for the relevant NOC 7411
classification – Long-Haul Truck Driver.
[10]
It is relevant to note that the Officer stopped
the assessment at the “genuineness” threshold. It
was unnecessary to consider other LMIA factors if this threshold is not met.
[11]
The Officer acknowledged the receipt of the
submissions on the insurance requirements. She also indicated that the
representative of the employer had advised the Officer that the loads consisted
of produce, refrigerated food, and general freight, and that drivers would not
be required to transport dangerous goods or travel on dangerous routes.
[12]
It is important in the context of this judicial
review, and particularly in relation to the allegation of fettering of
discretion, to note the Officer’s reference to operational guidance which
states:
However, if the employer makes a case that
they require experience for relevant factors related to job performance, these
may be accepted if they are deemed reasonable (i.e. experience in driving
dangerous goods, challenging routes etc.) by the assessing officer.
III.
Issues
[13]
The issues are:
1.
Did the Officer fetter her discretion by
strictly adhering to the NOC classification and the operational and interim
guidelines (whether public or internal)?
2.
Was the decision reasonable?
3.
Did the Officer breach the principle of
procedural fairness by not disclosing the interim and operational guidelines?
4.
Did the Officer err by failing to take into
account the successful LMIA in 2015?
IV.
Standard of Review
[14]
The parties agree on the standard of review.
[15]
The standard of review with respect to the
Officer’s conclusion is reasonableness (Frankie’s Burgers Lougheed Inc v
Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2015 FC 27, 473 FTR 67 [Frankie’s
Burgers]).
With
respect to procedural fairness, the standard of review is correctness (Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
On
the matter of fettering discretion, a standard of review analysis is
unnecessary. Any decision in which a decision maker fettered his or her
discretion is both incorrect due to an error of law and also unreasonable.
V.
Analysis
A.
Fettering of Discretion
[16]
The Applicant argues that the Officer slavishly
followed the NOC classification and the Guidelines and refused to consider an
element not laid out in the classification.
[17]
In my view, there is no basis for this argument.
As indicated in paragraph 12 of these Reasons, the Officer did not foreclose the
possibility of deviating from the Guidelines or the NOC classification. She
recognized that the Applicant could have provided sufficient justification for additional
job requirements, and simply held that the Applicant had not done so in this
case.
[18]
In Frankie’s Burgers at para 92, the
Court held that there is nothing wrong with an officer following Guidelines/NOC
classifications so long as they are not considered binding and are applied in a
manner which permits departures where warranted. Here, the Officer specifically
recognized that she had the ability to step outside of the Guidelines in an
appropriate case.
[19]
The Applicant relied on Seven Valleys
Transportation Inc v Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2017 FC
195 [Seven Valleys], wherein the Court overturned an LMIA decision
because the officer did not take into account challenging routes, public safety,
and the high value of trucks in determining whether a requirement of 1-2 years
of driving experience was justified in the circumstances. This case is
distinguishable from the instant case because in Seven Valleys the
officer refused to consider the rationale for the additional job requirements.
In the present case, the Officer took into account the employer’s rationale but
found that it lacked substance, in large measure because it was focused on
insurance costs for which minimal detail had been provided.
B.
Reasonableness of Decision
[20]
In my view, the decision is reasonable. The crux
of this case is the failure to provide objective evidence of the necessity of
the proposed job requirements. It was a striking feature of this case that,
other than the unspecified insurance saving, there was no evidence of the
necessity of the requirement of 1-2 years of experience.
[21]
The Applicant criticizes the Officer for failing
to consider that drivers would be required to drive in mountains and snow.
However, this was the rationale advanced to justify the experience requirement.
[22]
A decision maker is not required to mention
every piece of evidence, and here there was little, if any, documentation on
the driving circumstances as justifying the job requirement. Mountain roads and
snow are common features of driving in British Columbia, and the Applicant
never established that a driver required 1-2 years of experience in order to
drive trucks in these common conditions.
C.
Procedural Fairness
[23]
The Applicant has not made out a case of breach
of procedural fairness. The level of procedural fairness owed in cases such as
these is relatively low (Frankie’s Burgers at para 73).
[24]
In this case, the Applicant was made aware of
all of the Officer’s concerns, and the employer contact had an opportunity to
address these concerns. The fact remains that the Applicant failed to provide
sufficient evidence to convince the Officer that the experience requirement was
not excessive.
The
Applicant’s reliance on cases related to the consideration of extrinsic
evidence is misplaced. Guidelines, whether published or not, are not extrinsic
evidence.
[25]
Reliance on internal guidelines or information
is not unfair if the substance of the information has been conveyed to an
applicant and the applicant has been provided with an opportunity to respond (Seven
Valleys at para 27).
D.
Successful LMIA Decision
[26]
Quite apart from the procedural problem of
submitting evidence in the judicial review that was not before the decision
maker, the material that the Applicant seeks to introduce at this juncture is
neither relevant nor persuasive.
[27]
The fact that an application for an LMIA in 2015
which contained a driving experience requirement was successful could only be
relevant if the facts were identical, including the rationale and the evidence
supporting the requirement. That information is not before the Court, nor was
it before the Officer.
[28]
The Court need not strike the affidavit in
question or rely on cases which hold that officers are not bound by previous
decisions, as in this case the Applicant has not established relevancy.
VI.
Conclusion
[29]
For these reasons, this judicial review will be
dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content