Canada’s immigration system heavily relies on the National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) system, managed by Service Canada. For applicants in the economic class, a deep understanding of the NOC system is crucial. The success of their immigration applications often hinges on proving they have qualifying experience or pre-arranged employment in specific NOC categories.
Employers submitting Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIAs”) applications to the Ministry of Economic and Social Development Canada (“ESDC“) need to know which NOCs their positions fall under because this will determine the respective prevailing wage and recruitment requirements.
Moreover, international graduates should be mindful of the NOC classification of their first job after completing post-secondary education. Experience in certain NOCs is essential for it to count towards immigration eligibility.
What is the National Occupational Classification?
The 2021 National Occupational Classification (NOC) system, as outlined by Service Canada, is the definitive resource for occupational information in Canada. The NOC serves as the nationally accepted framework for organizing occupations within the Canadian labor market.
Under the NOC 2021 system, nearly all occupations in Canada are classified and grouped based on the nature of the work performed, which is determined by the tasks, duties, and responsibilities associated with each occupation. Every occupation is assigned a unique 5-digit NOC code, an update from the previous 4-digit system.
To determine the appropriate NOC code for a specific position, start by visiting the Service Canada website. By entering the job title (or similar titles), you can identify the most applicable NOC code for the role.
For example, a search of “Cook” on Service Canada’s NOC website reveals the following possible NOC codes containing the word “Cook”:
The NOC Matrix (2016 and 2021)
For most immigration programs, the most important aspect of the NOC system to understand is the distinction between “High-Skilled” and “Low-Skilled” positions. The distinction between the two skill levels is important for most economic immigration programs and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Under the NOC system, occupations are divided into numerous Skill Levels as follows:
|
NOC Skill Level |
Description |
|
0 |
Management |
|
A |
Occupation usually requires university education |
|
B |
Occupation usually requires college education or apprenticeship training |
|
C |
Occupation usually requires secondary school and/or occupational specific training |
|
D |
On-the-job training is usually provided for occupations. |
Service Canada has a useful matrix showing which Skill Level each NOC falls on its website:
Occupations which fall under NOC Skill Level O, A, or B are considered “High-Skilled.” Occupations which fall under NOC Skill Level C or D are considered Low-Skilled.
In 2021, the 2016 NOC was replaced with the 2021 NOC. NOC 2021 resulted in NOC 0, A, B, C and D being replated with TEER 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Five groups became six. TEER stands for Training Education, Experience and Responsibility. Four digit NOC codes were replaced with new five-digit occupational codes.
Distinguishing NOC Codes
The NOC system in Canada can be nuanced and unforgiving when it comes to distinguishing between occupations. For example, NOC 62100 – Technical Sales Specialists (Wholesale Trade) includes roles like “electronic sales representative” and “farm machinery salesperson,” which are classified as High-Skilled occupations. In contrast, NOC 64100 – Sales and Account Representatives (Wholesale Trade) – Non-Technical covers positions like “advertising agency broker” and “freight-forwarder,” which are categorized as Low-Skilled.
This distinction is crucial for immigration purposes. Employment experience under NOC 62100is eligible for programs like the Federal Skilled Worker Program (“FSWP”) and the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC”). However, experience under NOC 64100does not qualify for these immigration pathways.
Often, the duties of two NOCs are very similar.
The Main Duties of NOC 1241 – Administrative Assistants, which is High-Skilled, for example, are:
The Main Duties of NOC 1241 – General Office Support Workers, which is Low-Skilled, meanwhile, are:
Visualizing the similarities between various NOCs is like imagining a Venn Diagram. Depending on the specific duties performed, a position might fall under multiple NOCs. For instance, it’s not uncommon for applicants to claim experience in NOC 1241, only for IRCC to determine that NOC 1411 is more appropriate. This reclassification can have significant consequences, as the applicant may be classified as having Low-Skilled experience, making them ineligible for immigration.
Specific Programs
The importance of understanding how to read the NOC website cannot be overstated. For example, r. 75(2)(a)-(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR”) provides:
A foreign national is a skilled worker if
(a) within the 10 years before the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made, they have accumulated, over a continuous period, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the occupation identified by the foreign national in their application as their primary occupation, other than a restricted occupation, that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;
(b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification;
(c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of theNational Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties;
IRPR r. 87.1 meanwhile states that:
A foreign national is a member of the Canadian experience class if
(a) they have acquired in Canada, within the three years before the date on which their application for permanent residence is made, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work experience, in one or more occupations that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix, exclusive of restricted occupations; and
(b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification;
(c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties;
Indeed, the term “National Occupational Classification” appears 36 times in IRPR, and can be found throughout the IRCC, ESDC, and numerous provincial nomination program websites. As can be seen above, most programs generally require applicants to demonstrate that their position matches a NOC’s lead statement, and that they perform a “substantial number” of the main duties of that NOC.
Retail vs. Wholesale Trade
As the Federal Court decision in Saatchi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1037, demonstrates, two particular NOCs that cause confusion are NOC 6221 – Technical Sales Specialist and NOC 6421 – Retail Salesperson. As Justice Flavel noted,
In reviewing the lead statements for Retail Salesperson (NOC 6421) and Technical Sales Specialist (NOC 6221), there are several important differences, one of which is that the former sells directly to consumers, whereas the latter sells to “governments and to commercial and industrial establishments in domestic and international localities.” Another way this could be explained is a difference in scale. The Technical Sales Specialist sells technical goods and services to institutional clients whereas a Retail Salesperson may typically sell a specific good or service to an individual customer.
As is made clear from the 2016 NOC, Retail Salespersons are explicitly excluded from the ambit of Technical Sales Specialist. An officer assessing NOC 6421 would therefore have an obligation to ensure that an applicant’s experience was truly that of a Technical Sales Specialist and not that of a Retail Salesperson, and hence, excluded.
The onus was on Mr. Saatchi to satisfy the Officer that he met the requirements of Technical Sales Specialist – NOC 6221. In support of his application, Mr. Saatchi submitted two employment letters. While it is true that both letters stated that his job title was Technical Sales Representative – Wholesale Trade Specialist in Heavy-Duty Trucks and Cargo Vans, his employers appeared to be car dealerships. Further, none of the duties listed in his employment letters provided any particulars regarding Mr. Saatchi’s experience in the wholesale trade of heavy-duty trucks and cargo vans. Mr. Saatchi listed in his CEC application that during his time at Scarborotown he was engaged in “auto sales.”
The Respondent also correctly points out that the Applicant did not inform the Officer – anywhere in his application – that his customers were mostly farmers and construction companies. The Applicant only introduced these details in his further affidavit in the present application for judicial review. This information was not before the Officer and is therefore inadmissible on judicial review, as no exceptions arise that justify derogating from this general rule (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20).
Cook vs. Food Counter Attendant
Another difficult distinction which often arises is Food Counter Attendant vs. Cook. In Kumar v. Canada, 2019 FC 367, the applicant worked as a Cook at J’s Pizza and Convenience Store.
The Lead Statement for Cooks states:
Cooks prepare and cook a wide variety of foods. They are employed in restaurants, hotels, hospitals and other health care institutions, central food commissaries, educational institutions and other establishments. Cooks are also employed aboard ships and at construction and logging campsites.
The Lead Statement for Food Counter Attendants, meanwhile, states that:
Food counter attendants and food preparers prepare, heat and finish cooking simple food items and serve customers at food counters. Kitchen helpers, food service helpers and dishwashers clear tables, clean kitchen areas, wash dishes, and perform various other activities to assist workers who prepare or serve food and beverages. They are employed by restaurants, cafés, hotels, fast food outlets, cafeterias, hospitals and other establishments.
In determining that it was reasonable for a visa officer to determine that the applicant was a Food Counter Attendant, the Federal Court stated that:
It was reasonable to conclude that the Applicant does not prepare a wide variety of foods because the Applicant only prepares a limited variety of simple foods, such as pizzas, chicken wings, lasagna, salads and breads which are served at a food counter.
Job Titles
In Zarrabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1336, Justice Diner reiterated that it is the job duties, rather than title, that are determinative:
At the hearing, Mr. Zarrabi’s counsel reminded the Court that the NOC job classifications are “intended for broad use” and that “occupations are identified and grouped primarily according to the work performed, as determined by training, education, tasks, experiences, duties and responsibilities for an occupation” (Statistics Canada, National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2021 Version 1.0, Catalogue No 12-583-X (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2021) at p 8). This underlines that to solely be guided by the job title rather than the underlying duties places form over substance.
I note that in Rodrigues v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 111 [Rodrigues], this Court has held that “the real function of the visa officer is to determine what is the pith and substance of the work performed by an applicant” (at para 10) (albeit, in the context of the Skilled Worker Program). Furthermore, the job functions rather than the title are key for the proper classification. As this Court has further noted “the particular job title a person may hold is not a significant factor in the assessment a visa officer is required to make under s 87.1(2) of the IRPR” (Adewunmi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1186 at para 23, in the context of Canadian Experience Class). Although the threshold may differ for different PR programs, the principle remains constant: the determinative factor is what Mr. Zarrabi did for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. If one looks at the pith and substance of his job duties as a barista (cashier), it is difficult to understand – without any explanation or rationale from the officer – how the additional task changed the classification to NOC-6311, the duties of which, by and large, do not appear consistent with his supervisor role. As Justice Phelan stated in in Rodrigues, “[t]angential performance of one or more functions under one or more job categories does not convert the job or the functions from one NOC category to another” (at para 10).
Senior Managers
There is often uncertainty over whether a Senior Managerial or Managerial position applies. In Recursive Craft Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2022 FC 1206, Justice Ahmed stated:
I agree with the Respondent’s position. While the Applicant’s counsel stated during the hearing that the Applicant has four employees, at the time of the LMIA application, the Applicant had only one employee and intended to hire two more in the upcoming 12 to 24 months. Given the small size of the organization’s team, I find it was reasonable of the Officer to determine that Mr. Ashyrov – regardless of his title – would not be working through middle managers, but would instead be directly involved in the operations of the business, a position that was better suited to a NOC 0213 classification.
I accept the Applicant’s submission that NOC Guidelines do not address the specific size or structure of an organization, and the descriptions for NOC 0213 and NOC 0013 do not in fact provide any concrete numbers for the size of a company. However, I find that the Applicant’s argument that the Officer erred by considering the size of the corporation is misplaced. I agree with the Respondent’s argument that it is necessary to consider the size and structure of an organization in order to understand what the day-to-day role of an executive would be. In this case, it is also significant in understanding the “kind of work performed”, pursuant to the NOC Guidelines. As noted by the Respondent, the role of an executive in a company with hundreds of employees and a corresponding hierarchy of managers will necessarily differ from the role of an executive in a company with one employee.
As such, I also agree with the Respondent that the NOC 0013 description suggests that it relates to a position within an organizational structure with several levels of hierarchy that allows for middle management – a structure most often associated with larger organizations. The description of NOC 0013 refers to managers who “plan, organize, direct, control and evaluate, through middle managers, the operations of their organization…”. As rightly noted by the Respondent during the hearing, the fundamental difference between NOC 0013 and NOC 0213 is that NOC 0013 refers to positions of executives who operate through middle management, rather than engaging in the work themselves.
Furthermore, while Mr. Ashyrov may very well hold the title of “President and Chief Technology Officer”, I find it was reasonable of the Officer to examine the duties he performs and the role he plays within such a small team. Job titles are not determinative. As the Respondent argues, to accept that Mr. Ashyrov’s title determines his NOC code would elevate form over substance in the manner that this Court has routinely rejected (Katebi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 813 at para 53; Rodrigues v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 111 at para 10). Notably, this aligns with the Applicant’s argument that the core principle of NOC coding, pursuant to the NOC Guidelines, relates to the “kind of work performed”. The Officer also explained that as the Applicant’s company grows, it could be possible for Mr. Ashyrov to eventually focus on NOC 0013 duties.
Under the reasonableness standard, the Officer’s decision-making process is entitled to deference (Vavilov at para 98). I find that the Officer adequately applied the NOC Guidelines to assess the job position in the LMIA application, as well as the duties performed by Mr. Ashyrov. In doing so, I am satisfied that the underlying rationale of the Officer’s decision is transparent, intelligible and justified (Vavilov at para 15).