Docket: IMM-19072-24
Citation: 2026 FC 539
Toronto, Ontario, April 23, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RUPINDER SINGH
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Rupinder Singh [Applicant], is an Indian citizen who seeks judicial review of a decision [Decision] made by a visa officer [Officer] on October 1, 2024, refusing his work permit application to work as a long-haul truck driver in Alberta. The Officer found that the Applicant had not satisfied the language requirements of the Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA].
[2] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider that documentation from his Alberta Class 1 driver’s license training shows that he satisfied this requirement. I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument: the document relied on provides raw test scores with no class descriptors and therefore provides no insight into the Applicant’s English language ability. As the Applicant’s application failed to meet the requirements of the LMIA, his application was reasonably refused. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
[3] The Applicant entered Canada as a visitor on July 8, 2023, and was offered a job as a long-haul truck driver by a trucking company based in Calgary, Alberta [Company]. The Company was granted a LMIA, which had both an English verbal and written language requirement.
[4] The Applicant filed a work permit application based on the LMIA in May 2024. In support of his application, he submitted, inter alia, an offer letter from the Company and documents showing the completion of the Mandatory Entry Level Training [MELT] program in Alberta by which he obtained his Alberta Class 1 driver’s license.
[5] The Applicant’s application was refused on October 1, 2024. The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes that accompanied the Decision state:
LMIA#9011550 requires English language proficiency both Oral and written in order to perform duties as a Long Haul Truck Driver. Client failed to submit evidence of a language assessment by an approved institution. I am not satisfied, based on the information before me that the client meets the language requirements outline [sic] by ESDC.
Application refused as per R200(3)(a).
III. Preliminary Issue
[6] In a letter to the Court dated April 20, 2026, counsel for the Applicant advised that after the filing of this application, the Company went into receivership and is no longer operational. Both parties acknowledge that this renders this application for judicial review moot, as a LMIA-based work permit application requires the support of a job offer, which is no longer possible.
[7] The question is whether the Court should nonetheless exercise its discretion to hear this application on its merits, which the Court is entitled to do despite the absence of a live controversy between the parties (Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 at 353).
[8] The Applicant asks that the Court do so as he says the Decision impacts his immigration record. The Respondent disagrees that the Decision impacts the Applicant’s immigration history as the Officer’s finding is based on the sufficiency of the Applicant’s application and not his language ability. The Respondent further submits that there is no issue of importance to be decided on the merits.
[9] I am unable to determine the impact of the Decision on the Applicant’s immigration history based on the parties’ conflicting submissions. However, I have decided to exercise my discretion to review the reasonableness of the Decision given that the hearing had to proceed in order to hear the parties on the issue of mootness and there are no substantial savings in terms of the parties’ time or the Court’s resources that could be obtained by denying a hearing on the merits (Luttrell v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 779 at para 22).
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[10] The parties agree that the standard of review on the merits of the Decision is reasonableness as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paragraphs 16-17 [Vavilov]. This Court must consider whether the Decision, including both its rationale and its result, falls within a range of possible outcomes when read in light of the history and context of the proceedings (Vavilov at paras 83, 94). A reasonable decision is justifiable, transparent and intelligible (Vavilov at para 99).
V. Analysis
[11] The Applicant submits that it was unreasonable for the Officer to insist on a language assessment by an approved institution since this is not a required document on a work permit application. The Applicant notes that this is a reviewable error as there was other evidence in his application that demonstrated his English language proficiency, which the Officer unreasonably ignored (citing Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1165 at paras 2-3 [Singh]).
[12] I am not persuaded that the Officer committed the error of turning a non-mandatory requirement into a mandatory one as the Court found in Singh. The GCMS notes show that the Officer’s Decision notes a failure to provide a language assessment, but the Decision is also stated to be based on a review of the information provided by the Applicant.
[13] Nor do I agree that the Officer ignored relevant evidence in conducting the review. The Applicant relies on information obtained from the internet detailing the “extensive training program”
he participated in to get his Alberta Class 1 driver’s license, none of which was before the Officer. While the Applicant submits that he “could not have completed all of these requirements if his English language skills lacked proficiency,”
there is no information in the record providing the language requirements of the MELT training program.
[14] Aside from a copy of the Applicant’s license, the only other document in the record is a copy of the Applicant’s “MELT Program Classroom Evaluation.”
This document contains only percentage test scores related to the Applicant’s completion of unidentified MELT training classes. There is also no indication as to whether the classes relate to written or oral English. I cannot fault the Officer for not having considered this information as it does not provide any (let alone sufficient) information regarding the Applicant’s written or oral English language ability (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 635 at paras 11, 14).
[15] The simple fact is that the Applicant failed to provide objective evidence establishing his English language ability, which was required by the LMIA. As the Applicant’s application failed to meet the requirements of the LMIA, his application was not only reasonably refused, but the Officer was required to refuse it pursuant to paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.
[16] It follows that the Applicant’s second argument that the Officer’s reasons provide no justification for the conclusions reached, is equally without merit. The basis for the Officer’s refusal is clearly stated and justified on the facts and the law that constrained the Officer and the Officer was not required to grapple with evidence that showed no obvious relevance to the LMIA language requirement.
VI. Conclusion
[17] As the Applicant has not satisfied his burden of showing that the Decision is unreasonable, this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
Email this Content