Docket: IMM-12410-23
Citation: 2025 FC 484
Ottawa, Ontario, March 14, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
MANDEEP KAUR SIDHU |
Applicant |
and |
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Mandeep Kaur Sidhu, applied for permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot (“Home Worker Pilot program”
). An officer (“Officer”
) at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”
) refused her application, finding that she failed to meet the education eligibility requirements.
[2] Ms. Sidhu challenges the Officer’s determination on judicial review, arguing that the Officer should have taken a broader interpretation of “equivalence”
and recognized that her study in her home country was sufficient to meet the minimal educational requirements of the program. The parties agree, as do I, that I ought to review the Officer’s decision on a standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 23).
[3] The Home Worker Pilot program was established as “a class of permanent residents as part of the economic class”
by Minister’s instructions (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], subsection 14.1(1)).
[4] The eligibility requirements for the Home Worker Pilot program were set out in program guidelines: “
Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot: Assessing the Application Against Selection Criteria”
(“Program Guidelines”
). At issue is the education requirement.
[5] The Program Guidelines provided that applicants were required to provide either a Canadian 1-year post-secondary (or higher) education credential or a “foreign educational credential equivalent to the above and an Educational Credential Assessment (ECA) report issued for immigration purposes by an organization designated by IRCC.”
The World Education Services (“WES”
), an IRCC designated agency under subsection 75(4) of IRPA, conducts education equivalency assessments (“ECA”
) and produces corresponding equivalency reports (“ECA reports”
).
[6] Ms. Sidhu applied under the Home Worker Pilot program to work as a home care provider for a family in Saskatchewan. She provided with her application copies of her education diplomas from India: a secondary school diploma and a general nursing and midwifery diploma. Ms. Sidhu also provided ECA reports from WES for both diplomas. As the program required the equivalent of at least a one-year Canadian post-secondary education credential, the equivalency of Ms. Sidhu’s general nursing and midwifery diploma is at issue.
[7] The ECA report stated it was evaluating the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery issued by the Punjab Nurses Registration Council. Beside “Canadian Equivalency”
the report stated: “Three years of hospital study and training”
and under “remarks”
stated “the credential is not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential.”
[8] The Officer relied on the ECA report to find that Ms. Sidhu had not provided proof of meeting the education requirements of the program under which she was applying.
[9] This Court has considered the education equivalency reports done by WES in context of the Home Worker Pilot program in a number of recent cases. Prior to the hearing, I issued a direction asking the parties to address three cases of this Court: Preeti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 551 [Preeti]; Ajaz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 876 [Ajaz]; and Chatha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1028 [Chatha]. All three of these cases involve applicants who applied for permanent residence under the Home Worker Pilot program and were rejected because the Officer relied on an ECA report done by WES that found their education degree from their home country was not comparable to at least a one-year Canadian post-secondary education credential.
[10] The Applicant has not been able to distinguish the reasoning in these cases. I find the Court’s reasoning in Ajaz, Chatha and Preeti apply to Ms. Sidhu’s circumstances. Similar to those applicants, Ms. Sidhu presented a WES report that noted that her education was equivalent to “three years of hospital study and training”
and then also stated that the “credential is not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential.”
[11] The ECA report that was submitted was not evidence that Ms. Sidhu met the requirements of the program for which she was applying. The Officer is not conducting the equivalency assessment but instead relying on the agency designated by IRCC to do these assessments. Given that in this case, the Officer relied upon the ECA report which addressed the equivalency of the degree that was at issue and clearly found that it was not comparable, I see no basis to find that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable.
[12] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content