The Federal Court dismissed Amritpal Singh’s challenge to an open work permit refusal, finding the officer reasonably assessed the financial evidence. In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1291, the Court also found that Chinook’s use after the decision did not show improper reliance on the tool.
Open work permit application and court challenge
Singh had applied for an open work permit to come to Canada and join his wife, who was working in Canada on a post-graduate work permit. An officer refused the application, and Singh sought judicial review of that refusal.
The applicant argued that the officer’s financial assessment was unreasonable. He submitted that his wife’s work as a cook involved shift work and seasonal fluctuations, and that the officer did not properly consider her banking records. He also argued that the officer overlooked his farm income and property holdings in India.
Why the financial assessment was upheld
Justice Pentney was not persuaded that the officer’s assessment was unreasonable. The Court found that the reasons showed the officer had examined the evidence and explained why it was insufficient.
The wife’s employment records showed fluctuating hours, while her banking records included amounts both lower and higher than the figure identified by the officer. The Court found no indication that the officer had unreasonably focused on the lowest amount.
On the applicant’s claimed farm income and property in India, the Court noted that the visa application did not explain how those assets would support him during his time in Canada. The Court concluded that the refusal was based on the record and reflected the applicable legal framework.
Chinook timing did not show improper reliance
The applicant also challenged the officer’s use of the Chinook tool. Global Case Management System notes indicated that the officer decided to refuse the application at 15:47 on February 21, 2025, while Chinook was engaged at 16:27.
The Court found that this sequence did not support the applicant’s argument that the officer had simply adopted Chinook-generated reasoning. Instead, Justice Pentney said the timing pointed toward an officer-generated decision because Chinook was engaged about 40 minutes after the decision was made.
The judgment referred to prior Federal Court decisions finding that use of Chinook does not automatically make an immigration decision unfair or unreasonable where the record shows that an officer made the decision. On this record, the Court found that the officer made the decision and that the later use of Chinook did not make the refusal unfair or unreasonable.
Application dismissed after applicant missed hearing
The hearing had been scheduled to take place in person in Winnipeg. Singh did not attend, despite emails and telephone messages from the Registry Officer and attempts by the respondent’s counsel to contact him about a possible videoconference hearing.
The Court proceeded on the written record, including the applicant’s memorandum and reply. It dismissed the application for judicial review and found that no question of general importance should be certified.
What the decision means
This decision turns on the evidence and timeline in this particular open work permit application. It does not state that Chinook use is irrelevant in every case; rather, the Court found that the record here supported the conclusion that the officer made the decision independently.
For judicial review challenges involving financial evidence, the judgment illustrates the importance of showing how particular funds, income or assets would support the applicant’s stated plans in Canada.
Source: Federal Court Decisions