Erin Brandt is a co-founder of PortaLaw, a Vancouver law firm which specializes in employment law. Audience submitted questions that we discuss include: Is it illegal for employers to not provide reference letters necessary for immigration purposes or to charge their employees for them? Is it illegal for employers with foreign worker employees to not apply for LMIAs to try to extend their employees’ employment? Can employers distinguish between Canadian citizens, permanent residents and foreign workers when hiring? Can an employer not hire a foreign national or asylum claimant if they are likely to be deported? Is it ok for an employer to ask if someone is an asylum claimant? If an employer learns that an employee is without status – and the employee lied to them – can they legitimately refuse to pay the employee out for work completed during this time? If in order to meet prevailing wage an employer increases the wages of all of their LMIA-based TFWs, is it discrimination to not also increase it for their permanent resident or Canadian employees? We also discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Imperial Oil Limited v. Haseeb, 2023 ONCA 364, upheld a Human Rights … Read More
Punjabi Weddings
The following is an IRCC one-pager on the major ceremonies of a Punjabi wedding.
Court Certifies Question on Judicial Review of 117(9)(d) Refusals
The Federal Court (the “Court“) in Habtenkiel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), has certified a question that if answered in the affirmative would seem to pretty much shut the door on humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) appeals of s. 117(9)(d) refusals. The certified question is: In light of sections 72(2)(a), 63(1) and 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and the case of Somodi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 288 (CanLII), [2010] 4 F.C.R. 26 (F.C.A.), where the applicant has made a family class sponsorship application and requested humanitarian and compassionate considerations within the application, is the applicant precluded from seeking judicial review by the Federal Court before exhausting their right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division where the right of appeal is limited pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227? That question is long and confusing, but lets break it down.
Borderlines Podcast #145 – Minister Miller Blackmails the Provinces on Immigration Levels, plus IRCC Refusals of Provincial Nominees
This episode answers a listener topic request about an increase in IRCC refusals of provincial nominees. As well, Steven offers his unimpressed thoughts on Marc Miller’s recent statement in response to complaints about huge decreases in provincial nominee quotas that “Provinces and Territories that are willing to work in a responsible manner with Canada, including playing a role in taking on asylum seekers, will have an opportunity to regain coveted Provincial Nominee spots.”
Borderlines Podcast #144 – Restricting Open Spousal Work Permits
<iframe src=”https://embed.acast.com/659f464c3f69070017409684/67991fb2a234f420da42816b?theme=light” frameBorder=”0″ width=”100%” height=”110px”></iframe> On January 21, 2025, IRCC restricted the availability of open spousal work permits to principal applicants working in certain “skilled” professions. Family open work permits are now limited to spouses of foreign workers who are employed in TEER 0 or 1 occupations, or select TEER 2 or 3 occupations in sectors with labour shortages or linked to government priorities such as natural and applied sciences, construction, health care, natural resources, education, sports and military sectors. The move more than reversed a December 2, 2022, announcement that IRCC would be allowing most spouses of workers in Canada to obtain open work permits because, according to the government, it would “improve the emotional well-being, physical health and financial stability of workers by keeping families together” and that the “worker will better integrate into their overall work environment and community.”
C-11 Work Permits
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) International Mobility Program contains Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) exemption code C-11, titled Canadian interests – Significant benefit – Entrepreneurs/self-employed candidates seeking to operate a business. The exemption falls under Regulation 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. According to the IRCC website, the eligibility requirement can be divided into those who seek permanent residence and those who don’t. For those who seek permanent residence, an applicant must: be an actual or potential provincial nominee undertaking business activities or be a Quebec-destined entrepreneur or self-employed person issued a Quebec Selection Certificate (a “CSQ”); and have a letter of support from the province or territory (this letter of support should count towards evidence that their admission to Canada to operate a business may create significant economic, social or cultural benefit to Canada) or a request from the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion (MIDI) requesting early entry. For those who do not seek permanent residence, an applicant must: demonstrate that their admission to Canada to operate their business would generate significant economic, social or cultural benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Benefits to Canadian clients of a self-employed worker may … Read More
Cover Letters
In Sayekan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 97, the Court reiterated that a cover letter can create a presumption that a document was submitted.
Right to Counsel at Interviews
In Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 130, Justice Norris reiterated that the right to have counsel present at an interview has been recognized as an element of procedural fairness. While visa officers have the discretion to exclude counsel from an interview, that discretion must be exercised consistently with the duty of fairness and in light of the particular facts of the case. In order to demonstrate that there was a breach of procedural fairness, it must be demonstrated what would have been different had counsel been permitted to attend.
Borderlines Podcast #143 – The Economics of Deporting 1,000,000 Temporary Residents, with Christopher Worswick
Christopher Worswick is a Professor of Economics at Carleton University. We discuss the economics of Canada’s plan to reduce its population, and specifically that 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 foreign students and workers will leave Canada from 2025-2027. Topics include impacts on GDP per capita, unemployment, housing and more.
What Happens After a Judicial Review
The Federal Court of Canada (the “Federal Court“) has the jurisdiction to review immigration decisions, including those of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) and the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“). The Federal Court will not order a specific result. Rather, the Federal Court will order that the application be sent back for re-determination by a different officer. Many people often wonder how that process works. Jurisprudence In Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc. (C.A.), 2003 FCA 53, the Federal Court of Appeal stated: The principle of stare decisis is, of course, well known to lawyers and judges. Lower courts must follow the law as interpreted by a higher co-ordinate court. They cannot refuse to follow it: Canada Temperance Act (The), Re, 1939 CanLII 58 (ON CA), [1939] O.R. 570 (C.A.), at page 581, affd 1946 CanLII 351 (UK JCPC), [1946] 2 D.L.R. 1 (P.C.); Woods v. The King, 1951 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1951] S.C.R. 504, at page 515. This principle applies equally to tribunals having to follow the directions of a higher court as in this case. On redetermination, the duty of a tribunal is to follow the directions of the reviewing court. In Canada (Citizenship and … Read More
