Docket: IMM-13628-23
Citation: 2025 FC 483
Ottawa, Ontario, March 14, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
|
BETWEEN: |
|
BERNADETTE MAGNO BARTOLOME |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Bernadette Magno Bartolome, 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. Bartolome challenges the Officer’s determination on judicial review, arguing that the Officer’s determination is not consistent with the evidence in the record that demonstrated 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 one-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. Bartolome applied for permanent residence under the Home Worker Pilot program. She had come to Canada in 2020 and worked as a home caregiver. Ms. Bartolome has a Doctorate in Dental Medicine (D.D.M.) from Manila Central University. She provided with her application copies of her education diploma from Philippines and an ECA report from WES.
[7] The ECA report stated it was evaluating the Doctor of Dental Medicine issued by the Manila Central University. Beside “Canadian Equivalency”
the report stated: “Four years of professional study in dentistry”
and under “remarks”
stated “the Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.D.M.) is the first professional degree in dentistry in the Philippines.”
[8] The Officer rejected the application, providing the following rationale:
Although they have four years or [sic] professional study in dentistry they have not demonstrated they have a completed credential. As report clearly states, four years or [sic] professional study in dentistry are not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential therefore [Ms. Bartolome] does not meet education criteria.
[9] The Officer misstates the ECA report’s findings. There is no statement in the ECA report that Ms. Bartolome’s degree is “not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential.”
This factual inaccuracy is not a minor misstep but the grounds on which the Officer refused the application. On this basis alone the matter must be sent back to be redetermined.
[10] 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. In the cases of Preeti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 551; Ajaz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 876; and Chatha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1028, there was a clear statement in the ECA report that the degree was “not comparable to a Canadian education credential.”
The Court found the decision reasonable where the officer relied on an ECA report that assessed the relevant degree and found it was not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential.
[11] This Court’s decisions in Lakhwinder Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 251 and Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 162 involve very similar fact situations to Ms. Bartolome’s case. Like Ms. Bartolome, the applicants had professional dental degrees, and also like Ms. Bartolome, their respective ECA reports indicated that the degree is equivalent to a number of years of professional study, but there was no statement about whether the degree is comparable to a Canadian education credential. Both Justice Go and Justice Kane found it unreasonable for the Officer to rely on the ECA report to reject the application for failing to meet the requirement that it was comparable to a Canadian education credential when the ECA report was silent on this issue. I find the reasoning in these cases applies equally to Ms. Bartolome’s situation.
[12] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content