Maplevisa

Temporary Work Permit, Singh v. Canada, 2026 FC 1168

The Federal Court dismissed Baldeep Singh’s challenge to the refusal of his temporary work permit application on September 16, 2026. The Court found that the visa officer reasonably concluded Singh had not shown he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

Work permit application and refusal

Singh applied through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for a two-year position at a Tim Hortons restaurant in Fort St. John, British Columbia. The visa officer refused the application after finding they were not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his temporary stay, as required by paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The officer accepted that Singh had some family ties in India but found that his economic incentives to remain in Canada outweighed the strength of his economic ties there. The officer noted that Singh had not provided pay slips or bank statements showing salary deposits for his current employment, had not demonstrated substantial income, and had few assets of his own.

The officer also considered Singh’s age, single status and lack of dependants as contextual factors. Although Singh’s asset statement listed properties, the Court noted that those properties were in his father’s name.

Singh’s arguments on judicial review

Singh accepted that he bore the burden of demonstrating that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay and that the missing pay slips were a legitimate concern. However, he argued that the officer did not adequately consider evidence of his past food-service employment, property ownership, family connections and community involvement in India.

He also submitted that the officer gave undue weight to the ordinary economic advantages of working in Canada and to the description of him as highly mobile. Singh argued that his planned Canadian work experience would support his food-service career in India and that the positive Labour Market Impact Assessment and fixed-term employment contract supported his application.

Court finds the officer’s reasoning reasonable

Madam Justice Pallotta identified the sole issue as whether the officer’s decision was reasonable. Applying the reasonableness framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, the Court found that the officer’s brief reasons were nevertheless justified by the application record.

The Court held it was reasonable for the officer to find Singh’s current employment status unclear. His evidence of that employment consisted only of an offer letter, while he had provided pay slips to establish his previous employment. The absence of current pay slips or salary deposits supported the officer’s concern.

The Court also found that Singh had not demonstrated strong economic ties to India. Regarding family ties, the only evidence before the officer was Singh’s affidavit statement that he lived with his parents and sibling and would return to them. The Court concluded that this statement was insufficient to show that family ties would motivate his return.

Justice Pallotta rejected the submission that the officer failed to balance Singh’s ties to India against possible incentives to overstay. The Court found that the officer’s concern about stronger economic incentives to remain in Canada was supported by the record and adequately explained. Singh had not established that the officer overlooked material evidence.

Application dismissed with no certified question

In Singh v. Canada, 2026 FC 1168, the Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The parties did not propose a question for certification, and the Court found that there was no question to certify.

The decision turns on the evidence in Singh’s application and the reasonableness of the officer’s assessment. It illustrates that, in a temporary work permit refusal challenged on judicial review, the Court may uphold an officer’s conclusion where concerns about employment documentation, assets and evidence of ties to the home country are supported by the record.

Source: Federal Court Decisions