Docket: IMM-7625-25
Citation: 2026 FC 1221
Ottawa, Ontario, October 2, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DARA SINGH
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an officer’s (the “Officer”
) decision, dated February 24, 2025, refusing the Applicant’s application for a work permit (the “Decision”
).
[2] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the Officer’s reasons fail to grapple with the totality of the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of his application.
[3] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay, and the Global Case Management System (“GCMS”
) notes set out sufficient reasons to justify the Decision.
[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is granted.
II. Background
[5] The Applicant is a 56-year-old citizen of India. The Applicant works in agriculture and has since 2000.
[6] On June 18, 2024, the Applicant applied for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”
) based work permit as a general farm worker with Abby Valley Holding Ltd. in Abbotsford, British Columbia.
[7] The Applicant submitted several documents in support of his work permit application, including proof of education; his qualification for the position; evidence of his socio-economic ties to India, including a marriage certificate, identity cards for his spouse and children, and evidence of property ownership; and proof of funds.
[8] On February 24, 2025, the Officer refused the Applicant’s application. The GCMS notes that set out the reasons for the refusal state in part:
… The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Given the economic motives, the client’s incentives to remain in Canada may outweigh their ties to their home country. Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a bona fide worker and will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.
[9] On March 12, 2025, the Applicant filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review of the Officer’s Decision to refuse the work permit.
III. Issue and Standard of Review
[10] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 25, 86).
[11] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 85).
[12] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[13] The sole issue in this application is whether the Officer’s Decision was reasonable.
IV. Analysis
[14] The Respondent argued that the reasons for the Decision, when read with the record, are responsive to the Applicant’s application and are reasonable. The Respondent argued that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would leave Canada at the end of the period of his authorized stay.
[15] The Respondent argued that the onus is on the Applicant to establish that he will leave Canada at the end of the authorized period of stay, and this must be supported with sufficient information. The Applicant must put his best foot forward with his application.
[16] The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s application indicated that he had been self-employed as an agriculturist and was the proprietor of Dara Catering, however, the Applicant failed to provide evidence related to the catering business in his application.
[17] The Respondent also argued that the Applicant’s application includes a letter dated July 26, 2024, from the Applicant where he states that he had been actively involved in his own farming operations since 2000, on lands in Punjab, India. However, supporting documentation provided by the Applicant indicated that the lands farmed by the Applicant were not his lands, rather he leased the land. Further, the documentation indicated that the lease would expire on March 31, 2024. While the Applicant could renew the lease, there was no lease renewal information before the Officer. In addition, the Respondent argued there was no information before the Officer as to how the Applicant’s farming operation in India would be managed while he was in Canada.
[18] Finally, the Respondent argued that the Applicant provided insufficient evidence as to why he would give up his life in India for a minimum wage farm worker position.
[19] With respect, I am not persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments. The Respondent’s arguments are an attempt to bolster the Officer’s reasons. It is not for counsel for the Minister to develop reasons that buttress and bolster a visa officer’s decision (Namin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1706 at para 17).
[20] The issues highlighted by the Respondent in oral argument, including the information concerning the Applicant’s catering business, the information concerning the agricultural lands he farmed in India, and how his agricultural business would be managed in his absence, are not referenced in the Officer’s GCMS notes.
[21] As set out above, the Officer’s GCMS notes highlighted the following concerns: that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit was not consistent with a temporary stay and that he may have economic motives to remain in Canada.
[22] I am persuaded by the Applicant’s argument that the Respondent’s suggestion that the Applicant would have economic motives to remain in Canada, essentially suggesting that the Applicant would abandon his family (a spouse and children) for a minimum wage farm worker position in Canada, is preposterous (Dhanoa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 729 at para 16). The Respondent’s submission is not supported by a shred of evidence. Rather, their argument disregards clear contradictory evidence that highlights significant ties the Applicant has in India. The Officer’s notes do not appear to grapple with this evidence in any meaningful way.
[23] Further, as this Court has stated, the economic incentive to come and work in Canada does not and cannot imply that the temporary worker will overstay, this notion is inconsistent with the policy behind the work permit scheme (Minhas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 696 at para 16).
[24] I am similarly persuaded that the Officer’s reasons lack proper analysis. I agree that the Officer simply states conclusions and does not engage in any analysis or grapple with the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of his application that could have led to a different conclusion. The reasons for decision must demonstrate that the Officer “meaningfully grapple[d]”
with key issues or central arguments raised (Vavilov at para 128). The Officer’s reasons, with respect, do not meet the standard for proper reasons as set out in Vavilov. It is not clear from a review of the GCMS notes why the proposed visit is not consistent with a temporary stay or what economic incentives may motivate the Applicant to overstay.
[25] The Officer’s failure to meaningfully grapple with the contradictory evidence set out in the Applicant’s application renders the Decision unreasonable.
[26] The Officer’s reasons are not intelligible or responsive to the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of his application. In my view, the Officer’s reasons, as set out in the GCMS notes do not provide a “modicum of clarity”
to permit this Court to understand how the Officer reached their decision (Ogbuchi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 764 at para 13, citing Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para 16).
V. Conclusion
[27] The Officer’s reasons failed to provide sufficient analysis to transparently and intelligibly justify the Decision, accordingly, the Decision is not reasonable.
[28] The parties did not pose questions for certification and I agree there are none.
Email this Content