Work Permit Reconsideration Sent Back for New Review

The Federal Court has allowed a judicial review of IRCC’s refusal to reconsider a work permit application after the applicant’s counsel missed a passport request posted to an online portal. The work permit reconsideration matter has been sent back to a different officer for redetermination. Justice A. Grant found the officer’s reasons did not engage with the actual basis for the reopening request: counsel’s oversight, rather than an alleged error by IRCC.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1323, Court file IMM-3950-25.
• Decision date & judge: October 28, 2026, by the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant.
• Issue: Whether an IRCC officer erred by refusing to reconsider a work permit application after a passport submission deadline was missed.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer, with no costs.

Passport request was missed on IRCC portal

The applicant, a 38-year-old citizen of China, applied for a work permit through an IRCC online portal in November 2024. Her counsel submitted the application.

On December 13, 2024, IRCC posted a letter stating that a decision had been made and that the applicant’s passport was required to complete the process. The letter gave 30 days to provide the passport.

Counsel did not notice the correspondence at the time and the passport was not submitted. IRCC refused the work permit application on January 31, 2025.

Counsel requested reconsideration that same day, explaining that they had not received an email notification about the portal letter and had become aware of it only on January 31. Counsel later noted that the applicant’s Labour Market Impact Assessment had expired, preventing its use in a further application.

IRCC reasons did not address the reopening request

IRCC refused the reconsideration request on February 17, 2025. The officer’s Global Case Management System notes stated that no errors appeared to have occurred that would have affected the sending of the letter.

The Court said the matter concerned the first stage of reconsideration: whether the decision-maker should exercise discretion to reopen the earlier decision. The parties submitted that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review, although Justice Grant held that judicial review had to be granted regardless of the applicable standard.

Justice Grant noted that the applicant asserted, without dispute from the respondent, that the work permit application had been granted in principle and that the passport request was for the administrative task of inserting the visa into the passport.

The Court found that the officer’s explanation did not respond to the reconsideration request. The request relied on counsel’s failure to respond to the notice, not an allegation that the officer had made an error in the original decision.

Court says discretion required engagement with request

Justice Grant stated that the officer was not required to grant the reopening request. However, the officer was required to exercise discretion in a way that showed some engagement with the rationale for the request.

The Court found no indication in the GCMS notes that the officer considered whether the interests of justice or unusual circumstances warranted reconsideration. It also said the officer did not appear to have considered principles of basic fairness, common sense and practicality.

The judgment does not grant the work permit. Instead, it requires a different officer to redetermine the reconsideration matter. No question was certified, and no costs were ordered.

Source: Federal Court Decisions