Last Updated on December 6, 2016 by Steven Meurrens
Procedural fairness in Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA“) applications is relatively low. In Frankie’s Burgers, the first reported Federal Court decision on the matter, the Court stated that (citations removed):
The requirements of procedural fairness will vary according to the specific context of each case. In the context of applications by employers for [Labour Market Impact Assessments], a consideration of the relevant factors that should be assessed in determining those requirements suggests that those requirements are relatively low. This is because, (i) the structure of the [LMIA] assessment process is far from judicial in nature, (ii) unsuccessful applicants can simply submit another application, and (iii) refusals of [LMIA] requests do not have a substantial adverse impact on employers, in the sense of carrying “grave,” “permanent,” or “profound” consequences.
However, as noted in the Kuzol decision, while the duty of procedural fairness in a LMIA application may be at the low end of the spectrum, it is not non-existent.
If an officer with the Department of Economic and Social Development (“ESDC“) relies on extrinsic evidence in reaching a decision, then there is a duty to disclose that evidence to the employer prior to the decision being made.
Extrinsic evidence does not include information that is publicly available on websites that are generally accessible to the public.
It does, however, include information derived from third parties that is not publicly available. For example, in the LMIA context, if an ESDC officer calls a third party to confirm whether there is a labour shortage in an area, and the information that the third party contradicts what the employer submitted to ESDC, then the officer must provide the employer with an opportunity to respond to the information that the third party provided.