Docket: IMM-12495-23
Citation: 2025 FC 539
Ottawa, Ontario, March 24, 2025 |
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN: |
DHARAMJIT SINGH GREWAL
|
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Dharamjit Singh Grewal (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of a decision of an officer (the “Officer”
), refusing his application for a work permit. The Officer denied the application on the grounds that the Applicant had not established that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay, as required by subsection 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002/227.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. In or around February 2023, he applied for a work permit from outside Canada, for employment as a General Farm Worker in British Columbia.
[3] The Officer found that the Applicant had not shown sufficient establishment in India, based on his savings and assets.
[4] The Applicant argues that he suffered breaches of procedural fairness, arising from his inability to address the Officer’s concerns with his application, and from a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Officer.
[5] As well, the Applicant submits that the decision was unreasonable, because the Officer failed to consider his evidence relating to financial establishment in India.
[6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) argues that the Officer met the standard of procedural fairness required on a work permit application.
[7] Further, the Respondent argues that the Officer reasonably reviewed the evidence submitted by the Applicant and reasonably denied his application.
[8] Any issue of procedural fairness arising in this application for judicial review is reviewable on the standard of correctness, following the decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[9] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision of the Officer is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.
[10] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "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"
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[11] Upon considering the evidence and the submissions of the parties, in my view the Applicant has failed to show any breach of procedural fairness on the part of the Officer.
[12] Procedural fairness due upon an application for a work permit is at the lower end of the scale; see the decision in Anenih v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 718.
[13] The test for an allegation of bias is high; see the decision in Committee for Justice & Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369.
[14] The Applicant did not identify specific evidence in support of this allegation. He has not established bias on the part of the Officer.
[15] I am not persuaded that the Applicant has otherwise shown a breach of procedural fairness. He bore the responsibility for the sufficiency of the materials submitted in support of his application and the Officer was not obliged to bring concerns to his attention.
[16] Upon reviewing the material and considering the submissions of the parties, I am not persuaded that the decision is unreasonable.
[17] In my opinion, the Officer commented on relevant matters arising from the Applicant’s application, including the lack of bank statements required by the application process. The Officer’s conclusion is reasonable relative to the materials submitted.
[18] There is no basis for judicial intervention and this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content