Docket: IMM-7741-25
Citation: 2026 FC 742
Ottawa, Ontario, June 5, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NOLY BALTAZAR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Noly Baltazar, seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] officer [Officer] dated April 11, 2025 [Decision] denying the Applicant’s work permit application under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
[2] The Applicant alleges the Decision is replete with errors which indicate the Officer made inferences and drew conclusions without regard for the evidentiary record. Additionally, some of the Officer’s findings are a breach of the Applicant’s procedural fairness. The Respondent argues the Officer’s findings are reasonable, entitled to deference, and should not be disturbed.
[3] For the following reasons, this application for judicial review is granted.
II. Background Facts
[4] The Applicant is a 46-year-old married Filipino national with three children aged 12, 9 and 5 years old. The Applicant owns and operates his own business.
[5] From August 2023 to February 2025, the Applicant was in Canada on a visitor visa. He returned to the Philippines prior to the expiry of his visitor visa.
[6] In March 2025, the Applicant applied for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to work as a kitchen helper in Airdrie, Alberta. As a part of his application, he provided an assessment of his education credentials, which confirmed he holds a degree equivalent to a Canadian bachelor’s degree, as well as banking, tax, and lease documents belonging to his Canadian sister and his wife’s assets in the Philippines. The Applicant’s prospective employer in Canada obtained a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment to hire him.
III. Decision Under Review
[7] The IRCC Officer refused the Applicant’s work permit application because they were not satisfied the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay, the purpose of his stay was not consistent with a “temporary stay”
in Canada, he has limited employment opportunities in his country of residence, and the Officer was not satisfied he is financially established in his country of residence.
[8] In a Global Case Management System [GCMS] entry dated April 11, 2025, the IRCC Officer noted the Applicant was seeking employment in Canada that was inconsistent with his education and work experience. Considering the evidence on file, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant’s motivation to work in Canada is reasonable, let alone his primary purpose for being in Canada was to work. The IRCC Officer further noted the Applicant had not provided evidence of strong ties to his home country, leading the Officer to conclude the Applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[9] The issues to be decided by this Court are whether the Decision was reasonable and whether procedural fairness was breached. Both parties agree the merits of the Decision are to be reviewed on the reasonableness standard and the issue of procedural fairness is to be reviewed on the standard of correctness.
[10] In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must ask, “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility”
(Vavilov at para 99).
[11] Procedural fairness arguments are to be reviewed on a standard of correctness or akin to correctness for which “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”
(Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 56; Schofer v Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 50 at para 15; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35).
V. Analysis
A. The Officer Did Not Breach Procedural Fairness
[12] The Applicant argues the Officer’s conclusion regarding his motivations and purpose in Canada were the result of adverse credibility findings which he should have had the opportunity to respond to.
[13] The Respondent argues the reference to a concern of the Officer should not be conflated with a credibility concern. The Applicant’s intentions are not in doubt; the Decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence. Regardless, the duty of fairness owed to visa applicants is on the lower end of the spectrum.
[14] I agree with the Respondent that no veiled credibility findings were made and there was no breach of procedural fairness.
B. The Decision is Unreasonable
[15] First, the Applicant argues the IRCC Officer’s conclusion on the Applicant’s motivation and primary purpose in Canada was unreasonable. Specifically, the Applicant argues the Officer does not explain why the employment opportunity being inconsistent with his education and employment history led the Officer to be concerned about his motivations. It is also unclear what evidence was relied on in coming to this conclusion. Relying on Omijie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 878 at paragraph 21 [Omijie], the Applicant claims he is unable to “connect the dots”
and understand the Officer’s reasoning process. The Decision does not indicate the Officer was concerned about whether the Applicant would be capable to fulfill the responsibilities of the role of a kitchen helper. There is no reason the Applicant cannot seek employment in Canada in a role different than his educational background and no legislative requirement require foreign workers to follow a specific career path. A person with different education or experience may choose to switch their career by venturing into another field of work for various reasons.
[16] Second, the Applicant takes issue with the Officer’s assessment of his ties to an establishment in his home country. While the Officer was not required to address every piece of evidence before them, silence on contradictory evidence may lead to a finding that the Officer overlooked evidence (Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at para 17).
[17] The Applicant submits the Officer’s finding that the Applicant is not financially established in his country of residence is contrary to the record. The evidence demonstrates he has over a decade of work experience in the Philippines and has assets and property. To the Applicant, the Officer’s conclusion of there being limited opportunities for employment in the Philippines is similarly unreasonable in light of the Applicant’s circumstances. The Applicant is proficient in English, has the Canadian equivalency of a bachelor’s degree, and work experience.
[18] Third, the Applicant makes the argument that the finding he will not leave Canada at the end of his stay was made despite his prior history here in Canada. The Officer noted the Applicant was previously in Canada from August 2023 to February 2025. However, the Applicant argues no balancing of the evidence is clear on the face of the Decision.
[19] According to the Respondent, while the Officer in Omijie failed to explain the refusal and it “was simply not possible to ‘connect the dots’”
, this is not the case here. The GCMS notes make it clear that the Officer based the finding regarding the proposed work on the evidence regarding the Applicant’s post-secondary qualification and past work experience as a warehouse supervisor and jeepney operator.
[20] The Respondent points out both the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 make it clear that the burden of proof was on the Applicant to provide specific information and satisfy the Officer that he had met the statutory requirements.
[21] According to the Respondent, the Officer did not find that the Applicant had any ties to his home country. Instead, the Officer was not convinced he had strong ties to the Philippines based on an assessment of various factors, including his financial establishment. Notably also, the Applicant did not provide financial documents in his name. The documents on land and vehicle ownership in the Philippines do not list the Applicant as the lawful or beneficial owner and the Applicant provided no banking or tax information of his own. It was therefore reasonable for the Officer to have concerns regarding the Applicant’s financial circumstances and ties to his home country.
[22] The Respondent similarly recognized the Officer was not required to address every piece of evidence before them unless there is evidence to the contrary (Sekhon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 700 at para 13).
[23] I do not agree the Decision was reasonable. First, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant had not demonstrated his motivation and purpose to work in Canada because he was seeking employment in Canada in a field not consistent with his education and work experience was unreasonable. There is no evidence of a formal education requirement for the position or that his ability to perform the job was in question. As mentioned by the Applicant, there is no explanation in the Decision as to why it was relevant or material that the Applicant was seeking employment in a field different from his prior experience.
[24] Second, the Officer’s findings regarding lack of financial establishment and ties to the Philippines are unreasonable given the Applicant’s employment history and financial assets in the country. The evidence shows a Certificate of Registration for a vehicle in his name and receipts showing payments he made. The Applicant also provided his certificate of employment and proof of his income.
[25] Furthermore, I agree it is unclear what factors or information the Officer relied on to conclude that the Applicant has limited employment prospects in the Philippines, particularly given that the evidence shows he has a higher education, English skills, and work experience in his country of nationality.
[26] Third, I find the conclusion that the Applicant has not provided proof of strong ties to his home country ignores the above evidence and his significant family ties.
[27] Lastly, as rightly argued by the Applicant, I find the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant is not a bona fide worker who will leave Canada by the end of his authorized stay fails to take into consideration the Applicant’s prior positive travel history to Canada.
VI. Conclusion
[28] The Decision does not comply with the requirements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility imposed by the Supreme Court in Vavilov and there was a breach of procedural fairness. Therefore, this application for judicial review is granted.
[29] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.
Email this Content