In Kaur v. Canada, 2026 FC 1123, the Federal Court set aside the refusal of a spousal work permit application and related study permit applications for dependent children. Justice Battista found that the officer’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of the applicant’s spouse’s qualifying Canadian employment was unreasonable.
Federal Court reviews work and study permit refusals
The principal applicant, Sumandeep Kaur, sought judicial review of the refusal of her spousal work permit application and the study permit applications of her dependent children. The work permit was refused after an officer found there was insufficient information about her spouse’s Canadian employment in a qualifying Training, Education, Experience and Responsibilities (TEER) category.
The decision was released by the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, on September 2, 2026. The Honourable Justice Battista heard the matter under court file IMM-3291-25.
Court finds employment evidence was not properly addressed
Justice Battista found that the officer’s conclusion did not correspond with the evidence that was before the officer. The Court said the employment evidence provided could not be characterized as superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision.
According to the Court, the evidence collectively pointed to a conclusion different from the officer’s finding of insufficiency. The officer was therefore required to mention and analyze that evidence.
The officer had also noted that the spouse’s bank records appeared to show inconsistent regularity in deposits from his employer. However, the Court said it was unclear whether or how that concern supported the finding that the employment evidence was insufficient.
The Court noted that the officer did not question the veracity of the employment payments reflected in the bank statements. Without an explicit and justified finding, the bank-record concern could not outweigh the other employment evidence. The Court concluded that the role of this concern in the refusal could not be understood, making the decision unreasonable.
Refusals set aside for redetermination
Because the Court found the decision unreasonable, it did not need to address the applicants’ procedural fairness arguments.
The application for judicial review was granted. The refusals of the work and study permits were set aside, and the matter was returned to a different officer for redetermination. The Court certified no question and made no order as to costs.
What the decision means
This decision concerns the adequacy of the reasons for these particular refusals. It does not determine whether the applicants should receive the requested permits on redetermination.
For immigration practice, the judgment shows the importance of an officer meaningfully addressing material evidence submitted to establish a spouse’s qualifying Canadian employment when assessing a spousal work permit application.
Source: Federal Court Decisions