Docket: IMM-3274-24
Citation: 2025 FC 531
Ottawa, Ontario, March 21, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
BETWEEN: |
VEERPAL KAUR GILL GURSHARANDEEP SINGH ANSHDEEP SINGH GILL (THROUGH LITIGATION GUARDIAN VEERPAL KAUR GILL) |
Applicants |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Introduction
[1] The Applicants seek judicial review of the decision of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] officer [Officer] refusing the application of Veerpal Kaur Gill [Principal Applicant] for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class.
Background
[2] The Principal Applicant, her spouse and their child [together, Applicants] are citizens of India. In February 2022, the Principal Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class, which was created under s 14.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The IRCC document entitled Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot: Assessing the application against selection criteria [Program Guidelines] is posted on the IRCC website. This states that applicants should be assessed against the listed pass and fail selection criteria, based on the information and documents provided in their application. One of these criteria is education. Applicants must provide evidence that they have either a Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential, or a foreign educational credential equivalent and an Educational Credential Assessment [ECA] report issued for immigration purposes by an organization designated by IRCC.
[3] In that regard, the Principal Applicant submitted an ECA from World Education Services [WES], dated April 8, 2020 [WES Report]. The WES Report states that the Principal Applicant’s Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery awarded by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council is the Canadian equivalent to three years of “hospital training and study”.
[4] By letter dated January 19, 2024, IRCC refused the Principal Applicant’s application because she did not meet the education requirements under the Home Support Worker Class program. As the permanent residence applications of her spouse and their child were dependant on the success of the Principal Applicant’s application, they too were rejected. The Officer’s decision is the subject of this judicial review.
Relevant Legislation
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
Economic immigration
14.1 (1) For the purpose of supporting the attainment of economic goals established by the Government of Canada, the Minister may give instructions establishing a class of permanent residents as part of the economic class referred to in subsection 12(2) and, in respect of the class that is established, governing any matter referred to in paragraphs 14(2)(a) to (g), 26(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 32(d) and the fees for processing applications for permanent resident visas or for permanent resident status and providing for cases in which those fees may be waived.
[6] Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations SOR/2022-227 [IRP Regulations]
73 (1) The following definitions apply in this Division.
Canadian educational credential means any secondary school diploma or any post-secondary diploma, certificate or credential that is 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.
…
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.
Federal Skilled Workers
Federal Skilled Worker Class
Class
75 (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the federal skilled worker class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who are skilled workers and who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada and who intend to reside in a province other than the Province of Quebec.
(2) A foreign national is a skilled worker if
…
(e) they have submitted one of the following:
(i) their Canadian educational credential, or
(ii) their foreign diploma, certificate or credential and the equivalency assessment, which assessment must be less than five years old on the date on which their application is made.
…
Minimal requirements
(3) If the foreign national fails to meet the requirements of subsection (2), the application for a permanent resident visa shall be refused and no further assessment is required.
…
Conclusive evidence
(8) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), subsection (2.1) and section 78, an equivalency assessment is conclusive evidence that the foreign diplomas, certificates or credentials are equivalent to Canadian educational credentials.
Decision Under Review
[7] The decision letter states that the Officer determined, after an assessment of the Principal Applicant’s application, that she did not meet one or more of the requirements for immigration to Canada. Specifically, for applicants who have acquired less than 12 months of full-time work experience in Canada in an eligible occupation (NOC 4412, with the exception of housekeepers) during the 36 months preceding the date on which they made the application, the applicant must satisfy an officer that they hold: (a) a Canadian educational credential of at least one year of post-secondary studies; or (b) a foreign diploma, certificate or credential and an equivalent assessment — issued within five years before the date on which the application is made — 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.
[8] The letter went on to state that the Principal Applicant’s ECA result from WES states that the Principal Applicant’s diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery from the Punjab Nurses Registration Council is equivalent to three years of hospital study and training. The letter states that the ECA result is not equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential. Therefore, the Principal Applicant did not meet the indicated requirements. The Officer was not satisfied that the Principal Applicant and her accompanying family were not inadmissible to Canada.
[9] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, dated January 19, 2024, which form part of the reasons, state:
**Officer review** PA applied for Home Child Care Provider - Category A. PA's education credential assessment result from World Education Services states that PA's diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery from Punjab Nurses Registration Council is equivalent to three years of hospital study and training. The ECA is not equivalent to a completed Canadian 1 year post secondary (or higher) educational credential. Therefore the education requirement is not met. Application refused on R70(1)(d).
Issues and Standard of Review
[10] In my view the issues arising in the matter can be framed as follows:
Preliminary Issue: The identification of the decision under review and the admissibility of “new evidence.”
And, on the merits of the decision:
Was the decision procedurally fair?
Was the decision reasonable?
[11] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (see Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Functionally, this requires the Court’s analysis to focus on whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).
[12] I also agree with the parties that the standard of review on the merits of the decision is reasonableness. Reasonableness review asks this court to: “develop an understanding of the decision maker’s reasoning process in order to determine whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99).
Identification of the Decision Under Review and the Admissibility of “New Evidence”
[13] The Respondent notes that the Application for Leave and Judicial Review in this matter identifies the decision under view as the January 19, 2024, decision refusing the Applicants’ application for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class. However, subsequent to that decision, the Applicants made two requests for reconsideration.
[14] The first request for reconsideration was made on January 20, 2024. That request was refused. The Applicants submitted an application for leave and judicial review of the first reconsideration decision which was dismissed by this Court on July 25, 2024 (Court File No. IMM-5829-24). A second request for reconsideration was made in July 2024. That request included a new ECA, but from a different designated organization, International Qualifications Assessment Service [IQAS], which ECA was dated May 27, 2024. The second request for reconsideration by IRCC was understood to be pending at the time of the Respondent’s submissions.
[15] The reconsideration decisions are not the subject of this judicial review (the first already having been dismissed by this Court and the second decision has not yet been made by IRCC). However, the certified tribunal record [CTR] includes some material relating to the reconsiderations. Notably the IQAS report. The Applicants have also filed an affidavit of Harman Kaur, legal assistant to counsel for the Applicants, sworn on January 6, 2025, attaching the IQAS report as an exhibit [Kaur Affidavit].
[16] The jurisprudence is clear that, as a general rule, the evidentiary record before a Court on judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the decision-maker. Evidence that was not before the decision-maker and that goes to the merits of the matter is, with certain limited exceptions, not admissible. The recognized exceptions are when an affidavit: (i) provides general background in circumstances where that information might assist the Court in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review, but does not go further and provide evidence relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the administrative decision-maker; (ii) brings to the attention of the reviewing Court procedural defects that cannot be found in the evidentiary record of the administrative decision-maker so that the Court can fulfill its role of reviewing for procedural unfairness; and, (iii) highlights the complete absence of evidence before the administrative decision-maker when it made a particular finding (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, 2012 FCA 22 at para 20; see also Bernard v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2015 FCA 263 at paras 19–25; Delios v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 117 at para 45 [Delios]). An applicant cannot adduce new evidence on judicial review in an attempt to impugn the underlying decision on the basis of that evidence (Mahouri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 244 at paras 14–15).
[17] In this case, the IQAS report post-dates the decision under review – it was not before the decision maker. The Applicants submit that it comprises general background information. I do not agree. As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Delios:
[45] The “general background” exception applies to non-argumentative orienting statements that assist the reviewing court in understanding the history and nature of the case that was before the administrative decision-maker. In judicial reviews of complex administrative decisions where there is procedural and factual complexity and a record comprised of hundreds or thousands of documents, reviewing courts find it useful to receive an affidavit that briefly reviews in a neutral and uncontroversial way the procedures that took place below and the categories of evidence that the parties placed before the administrator. As long as the affidavit does not engage in spin or advocacy – that is the role of the memorandum of fact and law – it is admissible as an exception to the general rule.
[46] But “[c]are must be taken to ensure that the affidavit does not go further and provide evidence relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the administrative decision-maker, invading the role of the latter as fact-finder and merits-decider”: Access Copyright, above at paragraph 20(a).
[18] The Applicants also argue that the IQAS report falls within the exception because it “reconfirms the information that was in front of the visa officer”
and that it will “assist the Court in understanding the issue relevant to the proceeding”
and will “bring into focus procedural defects that cannot be found in the evidentiary record”
. However, in fact, the Applicants rely on the IQAS report to support their view that the Officer misinterpreted the WES Report. To support this position, they seek to compare the wording of the WES Report to the wording of the IQAS report, the latter stating that the Applicant’s Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery “generally compares to the completion of a three-year post-secondary Diploma with a focus in nursing and midwifery.”
[19] In my view, it is clear that the IQAS report is not background information. Rather, it is evidence squarely relevant to the merits of the matter decided by the Officer. The Kaur Affidavit is, accordingly, not admissible and the content of the CTR – including the IQAS report – that postdates the January19, 2024 decision under review will not be considered.
[20] Nor does the IQAS report serve to demonstrate a procedural defect not found in the record. The Applicants argue that it was procedurally unfair and unreasonable for IRCC “to direct the applicant to get their credentials assessed by the designated body and then refuse the application of the applicant who had her assessment done from WES just because the WES used different wording to give the same assessment as IQAS”
. This is of no merit. There is no evidence that IRCC directed the Applicants’ choice of ECA. Further, the Officer had no knowledge of the different wording as the IQAS report was completed after the Officer rendered their decision. This does not ground either a breach of procedural fairness or unreasonableness. Nor does it establish that the IQAS report should be submitted as an exception to the general rule against the admission of evidence that was not before the Officer as it does not demonstrate a procedural defect not found in the record.
[21] And, while the Applicants may raise a valid argument with respect to the IQAS report, I agree with the Respondent that it is one to be addressed in the second reconsideration by IRCC (along with the fact that the IQAS document indicates that the diploma was issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences rather than the Punjab Nurses Registration Council as indicated in the WES Report, and that the IQAS report refers to an additional degree not included in the WES Report). If the second reconsideration by IRCC does not result in a positive outcome, then the Applicant may choose to seek judicial review of that determination as they did with respect to the first reconsideration.
No Breach of the Duty of Procedural Fairness
Applicants’ Position
[22] The Applicants submit that the Principal Applicant fulfilled all of the requirements of the Home Support Worker Class as instructed by IRCC, including obtaining an ECA report by WES. Further, that the Officer did not question the sufficiency of the Principal Applicant’s submitted documentation. They submit that it was procedurally unfair for IRCC to direct the Principal Applicant to get her credentials assessed by WES, a designated body, and then refuse the application because WES used “different wording”
than the assessment by IQAS. Since the Principal Applicant put her best foot forward by providing all of the necessary documents (which if accepted would lead to the Officer granting the application), the Principal Applicant should have been given an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns. This would require an interview or an adequate opportunity to address credibility on grounds of procedural fairness.
Respondent’s position
[23] The Respondent submits that the Officer did not doubt the authenticity of the materials submitted or make an adverse credibility finding. Rather, the Officer simply took the Principal Applicant’s WES Report at face value and considered it against the explicit and publicly available program requirements. Where, as here, an officer applies publicly available guidelines to assess an application, there is no breach of fairness.
Analysis
[24] The Applicants refer to Bajwa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 202 and Mursalim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 264 to support their position. However, those cases (and others) stand for the proposition that a visa officer may be obliged to make their concerns known to an applicant and offer them an opportunity to respond where those concerns relate to the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of the information submitted by the applicant, including the veracity of any documentary evidence (see also, for example, Nguyen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1617 at para 17). Here, the Officer did not raise any such concerns. Rather, the Officer’s concern was with respect to the content of the WES Report in relation to the Program Guidelines. Specifically, whether the WES Report confirmed that the educational requirement had been met.
[25] Further, and as I have indicated above, the Applicant selected WES as her ECA and the Officer had no knowledge of the IQAS report because it did not exist when they rendered the decision under review. Accordingly, even if a duty of procedural fairness arose—and I have found that it did not—the Officer could not have informed the Applicants of a difference in the wording between the two reports and offered her an opportunity to address this as the IQAS report did not then exist. There was no breach of procedural fairness.
[26] And, finally and contrary to the Applicants’ submission, the Officer did not refuse the application because of the different wording.
The Decision Was Reasonable
Applicants’ position
[27] The Applicants submit that the WES Report’s conclusion that the Principal Applicant’s education in India is equivalent to three years of hospital study and training in Canada “is at least equivalent to Canadian post-secondary education”
, such that the Principal Applicant’s credentials meet and exceed the program criteria. They argue that the Principal Applicant provided copies of her education certificates from India, which confirm that she completed a three-year Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery, and assert that this is the Canadian equivalent to three years of post-secondary study. However, that the Officer failed to engage with all of the evidence and instead applied a narrow interpretation of the WES Report, rather than considering its substance. Further, the Officer unreasonably interpreted the WES Report to find that the Principal Applicant’s education credentials were not equivalent, even though the WES Report is silent on the issue. The Officer also failed to explain why they determined that the Principal Applicant’s education credentials were insufficient to meet the minimal education requirement under the Home Support Worker Class. This was unreasonable.
Respondent’s position
[28] The Respondent argues that the Officer’s decision was reasonable. The Principal Applicant’s arguments are rooted in a presumption that her educational achievements in India are identical to educational achievements in Canada. However, she failed to establish that she had the Canadian equivalent of a completed year of post-secondary education. As such, the Officer was required to refuse the application. The Respondent submits that completion of one-year post-secondary study is insufficient, and that the one-year post-secondary study must have resulted in the conferring of a credential. Under s 73(1) of the IRP Regulations and the eligibility criteria in the Program Guidelines, a credential is “any post-secondary diploma, certificate or credential that is issued on the completion of a Canadian program of study or training at an educational or training institution”
and that the Principal Applicant’s foreign training would not have resulted in a completed one-year Canadian educational credential.
Analysis
[29] The Officer’s decision in this case is based solely on their assessment of whether the WES Report evaluation of the Applicant’s Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery, being the Canadian equivalent to three years of “hospital training and study”
, meets the educational requirements set out in the Program Guidelines, which states as follows:
Education
The applicant must provide evidence that they have either of the following completed items:
• Canadian 1-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential or
• foreign educational credential equivalent to the above and an Educational Credential Assessment (ECA) report issued for immigration purposes by an organization designated by IRCC
Canadian credentials
A post-secondary Canadian educational credential is any post-secondary diploma, certificate or credential that is 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. As such, an applicant who has started a college or university program and has successfully completed the credits for 1 year of that program, but who has not yet completed the program of study, would not meet this requirement.
Foreign credentials
For applicants with a foreign educational credential, the ECA report must
• indicate that the credential is equivalent to a completed Canadian 1-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential
• be less than 5 years old on the date of application receipt
• have been issued on or after the date the ECA organization was designated by IRCC
Equivalency assessments will include an assessment by the designated organization of the authenticity of the applicant’s completed foreign educational credentials.
Note: This assessment provided by the designated organization is not conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the foreign educational credentials. If an officer has concerns about the authenticity of an applicant’s foreign educational credentials, they must communicate these concerns to the applicant, afford them an opportunity to respond to those concerns and provide additional information or documentation.
(emphasis original)
[30] I note that, while not legally binding, operational instructions, procedures or guidelines may assist decision-makers in exercising their discretion and may assist courts in assessing the reasonableness of an officer’s decision (see e.g., Crosby Arthur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 338 at para 21, citing Raouf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1726 at para 26).
[31] In their submissions, the parties refer the Court to jurisprudence that they say supports their respective positions. I will address the most relevant of these cases.
[32] As the Respondent notes, Ajaz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 876 [Ajaz] is factually very similar to this matter. In Ajaz, the applicant obtained a diploma in nursing and diploma in midwifery from the Nursing Examination Board in Punjab and applied for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class Program (paras 1–2). The applicant submitted a WES credential assessment, which stated that her nursing diploma was equivalent to “[t]hree years of hospital study and training”
in Canada and her midwifery diploma was equivalent to “[o]ne year of hospital study and training”
in Canada (para 4). The officer in that case rejected the applicant’s application on the grounds that she had not provided “proof of a credential that’s equal to a Canadian one-year post-secondary”
and that “the Comparable Level of Education in Canada is Four years hospital study and training which is not equivalent to a Canadian one-year post-secondary.”
As the applicant had not provided a Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential or an ECA indicating that the credential is equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential, the applicant did not meet the minimum education eligibility requirements (para 5).
[33] In Ajaz, Justice McDonald noted that the applicant had argued that the officer failed to properly consider the WES report which, in the applicant’s view, confirmed she had completed the equivalent of four years of post-secondary study. In other words, and as the Applicants in the matter before me also submit, she argued the WES report demonstrated that she completed her diplomas after the completion of her secondary studies and, therefore, the diplomas were post-secondary education. Justice McDonald rejected that argument because the education requirement was clearly stated in the Home Support Worker Class Program and the applicant’s WES report “did not indicate that her credentials are equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential”
(para 8). While the applicant’s WES report showed she completed four years of post-secondary study and training, it did not state that this training was equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential/diploma/degree, as was required. Put otherwise, “according to the WES report, the Applicant’s study and training in Pakistan does not qualify as a one-year completed Canadian educational credential”
(at para 12). The applicant was accordingly not eligible for the Home Support Worker Program. Justice McDonald held that the officer conducted a proper analysis of the applicant’s education and dismissed the application.
[34] The parties also refer to Preeti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 551 [Preeti] – a case that Justice McDonald found was “directly on point”
with Ajaz (Ajaz, at para 10). In Preeti, an application for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class was refused because the visa officer determined that the applicant did not meet the minimum educational eligibility requirements of the program. The applicant produced a WES report in support of her application, which stated that her diploma in general nursing and midwifery issued in India was equivalent to “three and one-half years of hospital study and training”
in Canada. It also stated under the “remarks”
section that “[t]he credential is not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential”
(para 6). In finding the visa officer’s decision reasonable, Justice Fothergill found that “the Program Guidelines are clear. An applicant who has not completed a Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential must demonstrate that they have an equivalent foreign educational credential, as confirmed by an ECA report issued by an organization designated by the IRCC”
(para 15). Because the WES report submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that her foreign credential was equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential, the officer “had no choice but to find her ineligible for permanent residence”
(para 16).
[35] Ajaz and Preeti indicate that a WES report finding of Canadian equivalency to “hospital study and training”
, even if it results in the issuance of a foreign-issued diploma, does not satisfy the Program Guideline requirement. This requires that applicants must submit evidence of a completed foreign educational credential from a recognized institution and an ECA report that “
must indicate that the applicant’s completed foreign educational credential is
equivalent to a completed 1-year Canadian post-secondary (or higher) educational credential.”
[36] Similarly, Chatha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1028 [Chatha] involved an application for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class Program where the sole issue was the officer’s treatment of the applicant’s diploma in general nursing and midwifery obtained in India. In that case, the WES report indicated a Canadian equivalency of “three years of hospital study and training”
and in the “remarks”
section, stated that “the credential is not comparable to a completed education credential.”
The applicant argued that that the officer erred by interpreting her Indian diploma as not equivalent to a Canadian one-year post-secondary credential, asserting that the WES report was silent on that issue. Justice Fuhrer did not agree.
[37] In Chatha, as in this case, the applicant relied on Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 251 [Lakhwinder Kaur] and Lakhanpal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 694 [Lakhanpal] to support their position. Justice Fuhrer found both cases to be distinguishable. She noted that the WES report at issue in Lakhwinder Kaur, unlike the WES report before her, was silent about whether the relevant credential was comparable to a completed education credential. Lakhanpal was distinguishable because it was concerned with a different program, the Interim Pathway for Caregivers, with a different minimum educational requirement (namely, a secondary school diploma) and had been similarly distinguished in Ajaz and Preeti.
[38] Justice Fuhrer concluded that, like Preeti and Ajaz, the WES report before her did not show that her Indian diploma is equivalent to a completed one-year post-secondary (or higher) Canadian educational credential. In the context of the Home Support Worker Program, the WES assessment is required and determinative. Thus, the officer had no choice but to find the Applicant ineligible for permanent residence under that program (citing Preeti, at para 16). Further, s 75(8) of the IRPR provided legislative support for the conclusion that the ECA is determinative (Chatha, at para 17).
[39] Here, the Applicants rely on Lakhwinder Kaur, however, Ajaz, Preeti and Chatha are factually more similar to the matter before me. In Lakhwinder Kaur the applicant held a Bachelor of Dental Surgery issued in India. The WES report stated that the Canadian equivalency was five years of professional study in dentistry and, in the “remarks”
section, that the “Bachelor of Dental Surgery is the first professional degree in dentistry in India”
. The officer in that case made a finding that the WES report indicated that the comparable level of education in Canada is five years of professional study in dentistry “which is not equivalent to a Canadian one-year post secondary”
. Justice Go held that while the WES report did not specify the equivalency in terms of the years of post-secondary education, it also did not state that this professional degree is not equivalent to at least a one-year post-secondary study in Canada. Despite this, the officer referred to the WES report to find that five years of professional study in dentistry is not equivalent to a Canadian one-year post-secondary. She held that the officer did not provide any other reason for their conclusion, making it impossible to understand how it was reached. It was therefore unreasonable.
[40] Subsequently, in Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 162 [Kamaljit Kaur] Justice Kane noted that Kamaljit Kaur was factually almost identical to Lakhwinder Kaur (at para 22). In Kamaljit Kaur, the WES report stated: “Canadian Equivalency Summary: Five years of professional study in dentistry”
. It acknowledged the applicant’s Bachelor of Dental Surgery Degree and, under the “Remarks”
heading stated, “the Bachelor of Dental Surgery is the first professional degree in dentistry in India”
. The WES report did not include a statement that the Bachelor of Dental Surgery is the equivalent of a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential. The officer found that the applicant’s foreign credential “is not equivalent to a completed Canadian post-secondary educational credential.”
[41] Justice Kane distinguished Preeti because, unlike the matter before her, the WES report in that case included the statement “[t]he credential is not comparable to a Canadian education credential”
(para 24). Similarly, she found that in Ajaz, “the WES report clearly stated that the credential was not equivalent to a Canadian education credential”
(at para 25). Justice Kane found that, unlike Preeti, Ajaz and Lakhanpal, there was no statement in the WES report in Kamaljit Kaur that the applicant’s studies were not comparable to at least a completed one-year Canadian post‑secondary educational credential. While Preeti and Ajaz supported the view that the ECA is definitive, in each of those cases the WES report stated there was no equivalence, whereas in Kamaljit Kaur the officer provided no explanation as to why a bachelor’s degree—described as a professional degree and which would not be conferred unless it was completed— was not equivalent of a completed Canadian credential.
[42] It is true that, unlike Preeti and Chatha, the WES Report in this case does not contain a remark that the credential is not “comparable”
to a completed Canadian educational credential. However, in my view, the bottom line is the same: the applicants in those cases ultimately failed to demonstrate that their foreign credential was the equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential and, therefore, the officer had no choice but to find them ineligible for permanent residence under the Home Support Worker Class program (Preeti, at para 16; Chatha, at para 17). The WES Report here was “silent”
(or does not explicitly state that the foreign credential was not the equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential) but what was required was that the Report state that the foreign credential was the equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential. This it does not do. It is also of note that what was involved in Preeti and Chatha was study and hospital training, and not a professional degree as was the case in Lakhwinder Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur.
[43] In my view, this case is on all fours with Ajaz. There the WES report stated that the applicant’s nursing diploma was equivalent to three years of hospital study and training and the midwifery diploma was equivalent to one year of hospital training and study. It did not state that this study and training was equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential. That was the clear educational requirement that had to be met to be eligible under the Home Support Worker Class. On my reading of Ajaz, it is not clear that the WES report in that case contained a “remarks”
section comment or to have otherwise stated that the study and training are not comparable or equivalent to a Canadian one-year post-secondary credential (a review of the report found in the record of that matter confirms that it did not). However, the GCMS notes could be (and possibly were in Preeti and Chatha) interpreted to suggest this, rather than as the officer’s finding on the point. What is clear, however, is that the report did not state that the study and hospital training was equivalent to a completed one-year Canadian post-secondary credential, and, for that reason, the officer reasonably found that the applicant did not meet the educational eligibility requirement.
[44] I appreciate that in Lakhwinder Kaur, the officer’s decision did not indicate that the required equivalency was missing and that Justice Go found that the officer interpreted the report to find that a five-year professional study of a bachelor’s degree in India is not the equivalent to a Canadian one-year post-secondary credential, even though the WES report was silent on the point. Therefore, without further reasons for that conclusion, the Court found decision to be unreasonable.
[45] However, I am not persuaded that in this case the Officer interpreted the WES Report to make any equivalency finding. The GCMS notes set out what the WES Report indicated. Specifically, that the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery had the Canadian equivalent of three years of hospital study and training. The notes then state that the ECA is not the equivalent to a completed one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential. In my view, this conclusion was based on the absence of the WES Report stating that the Principal Applicant held the required equivalency—the required eligibility criteria—not on the Officer’s own assessment of her educational credential or an interpretation of the WES Report. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Officer to find that the educational requirement was not met.
[46] It is also significant that s 75(3) of the IRP Regulations states that if the foreign national fails to meet the requirements of s 72(2)—which includes the education requirement—the application for a permanent residence visa “shall be refused and no further assessment is required”
. Subsection 78(8) states that an equivalency assessment is “conclusive evidence”
that the foreign diplomas, certificates or credentials are equivalent to Canadian educational credentials. This is reflected in the IRCC Guide 0104 – Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots: Gaining experience category – Application for permanent residence and an occupation-restricted open work permit outside Canada, which advises potential applicants of what is required under the program, including the required educational documentation. This states that the ECA report and proof of an applicant’s completed foreign educational credential(s) “will be used as proof of whether you meet the post-secondary education credential requirement”
. The Program Guidelines state that applicants should be “assessed against the pass fail selection criteria set out”
which incudes the education criteria.
All of which is to say that some ECA reports may include a remark or finding that the credential being assessed is not comparable to a completed education credential—the inclusion of which may be preferable. However, if the ECA report does not include such a finding and also does not positively confirm that the foreign education credential is equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential, then the program requirement has not been met. In that circumstance, in my view, it is open to an officer to find that the ECA result is not equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary (or higher) educational credential, as the Officer did in this matter, because the applicant has not, by way of the ECA, demonstrated this to be the case. Here, the Officer compared the content of the WES Report to the education criteria of the Program Guidelines. This was what was required of them. They did not interpret the WES Report in relation to the foreign education documentation submitted by the Principal Applicant and nor were they required to do so. As the WES Report did not confirm that the Principal Applicant’s study and hospital training is equivalent to a completed Canadian one-year post-secondary educational credential, the Officer reasonably found that the ECA was not an equivalent and, therefore, that the Principal Applicant did not meet the educational requirement. While the wording of the decision could certainly have been clearer, and it would have been preferable for the WES Report to have included a comparative finding, based on the reasons and the record, the Court is able to understand how and why the Officer reached this conclusion, which was reasonable.
Email this Content