Docket: IMM-9580-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1865
Ottawa, Ontario, November 26, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tsimberis
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GAGANDEEP KAUR |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is the judicial review of the April 25, 2024 decision [Decision] by an immigration officer [Officer] refusing the application for permanent residency under the Home Childcare Provider Pilot Program [HCPPP] of the Applicant, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur. The refusal was made pursuant to paragraph 70(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], based on Ms. Kaur failing to prove that she met the educational requirement for the HCPPP.
[2] For the reasons that follow, this Court dismisses the application for judicial review. The Officer reasonably assessed Ms. Kaur’s application on the basis of the evidence before them (i.e. the World Education Service [WES] certificate) and reasonably justified why she failed to meet the minimum level of education.
II. Background
[3] Ms. Kaur, an Indian citizen, received a job offer from a father in Mississauga, Ontario, to act as a caretaker for his child. The job offer allowed Ms. Kaur to apply for permanent residency under the HCPPP.
[4] On January 6, 2022, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] received Ms. Kaur’s application for permanent residency under the HCPPP.
[5] Ms. Kaur’s education includes a Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery from Punjab Nurses Registration Council. Her work experience in India includes working as a staff nurse between March 2012 and June 2016 and as a school nurse between April 2019 and 2022.
[6] As part of her application, Ms. Kaur’s representative submitted a WES certificate. The WES certificate indicated that Ms. Kaur’s education was “not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential”
and the Canadian equivalency was amounted to “(t)hree years of hospital study and training”
.
III. Decision Under Review
[7] The Decision shows that Ms. Kaur’s application was refused under paragraph 70(1)(d) of the IRPR, for failing to meet the “selection criteria and other requirements”
under the HCPPP. More specifically, the letter indicates that Ms. Kaur failed to demonstrate an educational equivalent to 1 year of Canadian post-secondary study.
[8] The Officer's Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes are part of the reasons for the Decision: Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para 44. The GCMS notes reproduced below provide the Officer’s reasoning for their Decision:
Eligibility not passed as client has failed to meet the minimum level of education.
Client has applied under the Home Child Care Provider Class.
Client submitted a WES report as proof of Canadian Equivalency for education.
The WES report states the foreign credential is equivalent to three years of hospital study and training and is not equivalent to a completed Canadian education credential.
Per eligibility criteria, for applicants with a foreign educational credential the [educational credential assessment] report must indicate that the credential is equivalent to a completed Canadian 1-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential.
In this case, the client has failed to prove they meet the educational requirement for this program.
Application refused as per R70(1)(d).
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[9] This matter raises the following issues:
-
Is Ms. Kaur’s new evidence admissible?
-
Is the Decision unreasonable?
[10] The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 10, 25. To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review: Vavilov at para 90. The Court must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; a decision may be unreasonable, however, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it”
: Vavilov at paras 125-126.
[11] The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100. For the reviewing court to intervene, the party challenging the decision must satisfy the court that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency”
and that the alleged flaws “must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision”
: Vavilov at para 100. The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up”
: Vavilov at para 104.
V. Relevant Provisions
[12] The relevant extract of the provision of the IRPR on the requirements for the issuance of a permanent resident visa is reproduced below:
Permanent Resident Visa
Issuance
70 (1) An officer shall issue a permanent resident visa to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that
[…]
(d) the foreign national meets the selection criteria and other requirements applicable to that class;
|
Visa de résident permanent
Délivrance du visa
70 (1) L’agent délivre un visa de résident permanent à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
[…]
d) il se conforme aux critères de sélection et autres exigences applicables à cette catégorie;
|
[13] The HCPPP has several requirements, including an educational requirement of either: (a) a Canadian educational credential of at least one year of post-secondary studies, or (b) a foreign diploma, certificate or credential and an equivalency assessment — issued within five years of the application date — that indicates that the foreign diploma, certificate or credential is equivalent to a Canadian educational credential of at least one year of post-secondary studies: Ministerial Instructions Respecting the Home Child Care Provider Class, (2019) C Gaz I, 3173 [HCPPP Ministerial Instructions], s 2(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (B)).
[14] Subsection 73(1) of the IRPR defines “Canadian educational credential”
and “equivalency assessment”
as follows:
“Canadian educational credential”
|
« diplôme canadien »
|
“Canadian educational credential” means any diploma, certificate or credential, issued on the completion of a Canadian program of study or training at an educational or training institution that is recognized by the provincial authorities responsible for registering, accrediting, supervising and regulating such institutions.
|
« diplôme canadien » Tout diplôme, certificat ou attestation obtenu pour avoir réussi un programme canadien d’études ou un cours de formation offert par un établissement d’enseignement ou de formation reconnu par les autorités provinciales chargées d’enregistrer, d’accréditer, de superviser et de réglementer de tels établissements.
|
“equivalency assessment”
|
« attestation d’équivalence »
|
“equivalency assessment” means a determination, issued by an organization or institution designated under subsection 75(4), that a foreign diploma, certificate or credential is equivalent to a Canadian educational credential and an assessment, by the organization or institution, of the authenticity of the foreign diploma, certificate or credential.
|
« attestation d’équivalence » S’entend d’une évaluation faite par une institution ou organisation désignée en vertu du paragraphe 75(4), à l’égard d’un diplôme, certificat ou attestation étranger, attestant son équivalence avec un diplôme canadien et se prononçant sur son authenticité.
|
[15] Given the reference to “Canadian educational credential”
in the definition of “equivalency assessment”
, the criteria of the “Canadian educational credential”
definition must be fulfilled for a foreign credential to be found equivalent to a “Canadian educational credential”
.
VI. Analysis
A. Is the new evidence admissible?
[16] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] raises, as a preliminary issue, that Ms. Kaur’s Affidavit is improper as it adduces evidence that was not before the decision-maker and is inadmissible on judicial review: Association of Universities & Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2012 FCA 22 [Access Copyright] at para 19.
[17] Ms. Kaur’s Affidavit includes statements on her experience as a nurse. In her Affidavit, Ms. Kaur also claims her previous representative verbally confirmed that his office had submitted her International Qualification Assessment Service [IQAS] report for her Indian education degree via webform to IRCC.
[18] Ms. Kaur’s Affidavit attaches as Exhibit A, a letter from her previous representative dated July 15, 2024 along with, notably, the IQAS report for her Indian education degree and a corresponding email from an individual who was assisting Ms. Kaur with exchanging documents. The letter from her previous representative includes the following statements:
Webform Submission Timeline
Webform Submission Date: Not Known
-
On July 6, 2023, our office received an assessment report prepared by International Qualifications Assessment Service, dated June 20, 2023. The assessment report was sent to our office by email, from Mukesh Kumar, an individual who was assisting our client with exchanging documents. The assessment report and referenced email are attached herewith as Tab 2.
-
Both my assistant, Ramanjot Kaur, and myself had access to that email address. When we received the email attaching the assessment report, I recall asking my assistant verbally to submit it via an IRCC webform.
-
I have discussed with my assistant and am advised that she believes she did submit the assessment report via a IRCC webform shortly after receiving those instructions, in accordance with her usual practice.
-
Unfortunately, no official acknowledgement has been received from the IRCC and our office does not have a record confirming its submission.
[Emphasis added.]
[19] Ms. Kaur made no written submissions on the admissibility of the new evidence contained in the Application Record.
[20] The general rule is that evidence that was not before the decision-maker and that goes to the merits of the matter is not admissible in an application for judicial review in this Court: Access Copyright at para 20. The Minister filed the Affidavit of Mr. Eduardo Dagata, who was the Officer who reviewed and assessed Ms. Kaur’s application. The Dagata Affidavit confirms the Officer did not receive any other educational documentation in support of Ms. Kaur’s application other than the WES certificate. There was no cross-examination on the Dagata Affidavit and this evidence is uncontested before me.
[21] In Access Copyright, the Federal Court of Appeal held that there are a few recognized exceptions to the general rule, which "exist only in situations where the receipt of the evidence by the Court is not inconsistent with the differing roles of the judicial review court and the administrative decision-maker"
: Access Copyright at para 20. The Federal Court of Appeal then listed the three non-exhaustive exceptions, which I summarize as follows:
-
Where the new evidence provides general background information in circumstances where that information might assist in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review but does not add new evidence on the merits;
-
Where the new evidence brings to the attention of the reviewing court procedural defects not found in the evidentiary record of the decision-maker; and
-
Where the new evidence highlights the complete absence of evidence before the decision-maker on a particular finding.
-
[Emphasis added.]
[22] At the hearing, counsel for Ms. Kaur made oral representations on this issue despite not having made any written submissions. Counsel for Ms. Kaur submitted that, although this evidence was not presented before the decision-maker, the new evidence should be admitted under the first above-referenced Access Copyright exception as it provides general background to the Court to understand the procedural context. Specifically, Ms. Kaur argues the new evidence explains how she provided the information to her representative, and the representative in turn submitted the evidence to IRCC. Ms. Kaur also submits her affidavit provides “contextual background”
to her webform submissions that were before the Officer.
[23] First, it is highly irregular for counsel for Ms. Kaur to be permitted to make oral arguments that were not raised in Ms. Kaur’s Memorandum of Argument of Fact and Law. Second, the new evidence does not qualify under the first Access Copyright exception as it serves to “add evidence on the merits”
that is not permissible: Access Copyright, at para 20.
[24] I agree with the Minister that Ms. Kaur’s Affidavit, as well as the attached IQAS report, the letter from her previous representative and accompanying email, do not satisfy any of the above-noted exceptions in Access Copyright. They are therefore inadmissible before this Court.
B. Is the Decision unreasonable?
[25] Ms. Kaur has not contested the Officer’s assessment of the WES certificate confirming that Ms. Kaur’s Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery is not equivalent to a completed Canadian educational credential. Rather, Ms. Kaur submits that, due to a potential webform system error, the IQAS report (in the new evidence submitted before this Court) was not properly received because Ms. Kauer believes it was submitted through the webform. Ms. Kaur argues the Officer’s failure to consider this evidence renders the Decision unreasonable.
[26] I disagree with Ms. Kaur.
[27] The Decision cannot be unreasonable because the Officer did not consider evidence that was not before them (i.e., the IQAS report was not evidence before the Officer). I agree with the Minister that the Decision is reasonable given the evidence that was before the Officer. More specifically, the evidence before the Officer included the WES certificate confirming that Ms. Kaur’s diploma in general nursing and midwifery is not equivalent to a completed Canadian educational credential. This evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Kaur fulfilled the necessary educational requirement for the HCPPP.
[28] The Officer thus reasonably refused Ms. Kaur’s application because she failed to provide sufficient evidence in her application to demonstrate that the educational requirements for the HCPPP were met.
VII. Conclusion
[29] This application for judicial review is dismissed. The Decision under review was reasonable, both as to the resulting outcome and the decision-making process followed.
[30] The parties confirmed that there is no serious question of general importance that ought to be stated. This is a conclusion shared by the Court.
Email this Content