In LMIA Work Permit, Foukeng v. Canada, 2026 FC 1131, the Federal Court set aside a visa officer’s refusal of a temporary agricultural work permit application and related misrepresentation finding. The Court found that an incomplete certified tribunal record prevented it from assessing whether the officer’s reasoning was rational and justified.
Work permit refusal and misrepresentation finding
The applicant sought judicial review of an August 13, 2024 decision by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada visa officer. The officer had refused her application for a temporary work permit as an agricultural worker at a Quebec orchard.
The application was supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment and a Quebec Acceptance Certificate. The officer concluded that the application did not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The officer also found that the applicant had made a misrepresentation concerning a material fact relating to her employment history in Cameroon. That finding resulted in a five-year inadmissibility to Canada by operation of law.
Parties' records left key evidence unavailable
The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. However, the Court noted that she had not provided evidence supporting her claims. Her affidavit contained three paragraphs and did not attach or refer to the documents appended to her written memorandum.
Justice Benoit M. Duchesne found that documents attached only to the applicant’s memorandum were not admissible documentary evidence because they were not identified as exhibits to her affidavit. The Court also found that an affidavit endorsing allegations in a written argument had no evidentiary value.
The respondent did not file a court record, instead filing written submissions without a supporting affidavit. More significantly, the certified tribunal record did not include the work permit application that the officer said had been reviewed, nor did it include the applicant’s earlier statements from 2019 and 2020 that the officer had compared with the application.
Incomplete certified record made review impossible
The Court said the certified tribunal record should include relevant documents in the decision-maker’s possession or control. Since the work permit application itself was absent, the Court could not determine whether the officer’s analysis was rational or based on the facts in the file.
The record included screenshots that appeared to show parts of the Global Case Management System. But there was no affidavit evidence establishing their source, timing, meaning, reliability or whether they were the electronic document referred to in the officer’s notes.
Reading the reasons together with the available record, the Court found it impossible to understand the decision-maker’s reasoning on a central issue. Justice Duchesne therefore held that the decision was unreasonable.
Federal Court orders reconsideration by another officer
On September 4, 2026, the Federal Court granted the application for judicial review without costs. It quashed the August 13, 2024 decision and returned the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination.
The judgment addresses the adequacy of the record available for judicial review rather than making a finding on the underlying work permit application or the applicant’s employment history. It illustrates the importance of a complete certified tribunal record where an officer’s reasoning relies on an application, earlier declarations and electronic case-management materials.
Source: Federal Court Decisions