Date: 20030526
Docket: IMM-413-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 655
Ottawa, Ontario this 26th day of May 2003
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
ANDREW VENDIOLA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] Mr. Andrew Vendiola (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision made by visa officer Bradwin Niblock (the "Visa Officer") on October 9, 2001. In his decision, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for admission into Canada as a member of the live-in caregiver class.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. He applied for an employment authorization to enter Canada to work as a live-in caregiver. His prospective employers were his sister and brother-in-law, Annie and Bruce Vasseur, who live in Bonnyville, Alberta. They have five children ranging in age from 12 months to 13 years of age, at the time the Applicant sought admission into Canada.
[3] The Canadian Embassy, Visa Section in Manila, Philippines received a validated job offer for the Applicant on July 5, 2001. On August 8, 2001, the Applicant submitted his application for employment authorization under the live-in caregiver program.
[4] On October 4, 2001, the Applicant was interviewed by the Visa Officer. Although the Visa Officer was satisfied that the Applicant had met the education requirements for a live-in caregiver, he refused the Applicant's application; apparently because of a lack of experience. The refusal letter, dated October 9, 2001, provided in part as follows:
In assessing your application, I considered your education, work experience, language ability, and demonstrated knowledge of caregiving. Specifically, despite completion of training related to your prospective employment, you were unable to demonstrate that you have acquired sufficient knowledge and skills to adequately provide care without supervision. [Immigration Regulations 2.(1)"live-in caregiver" and 20.(3)(b)]
[5] The sole issue arising from this proceeding is whether the Visa Officer erred in law by incorrectly applying the requirements of the former Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 (the "former Regulations") when he refused the Applicant's application for entry into Canada as a member of the live-in caregiver class.
ANALYSIS
[6] The Applicant applied for entry into Canada as a live-in caregiver. This term is defined in the former Regulations at section 2(1) as follows:
"live-in caregiver" means a person who provides, without supervision, in a private household in Canada in which the person resides, child care, senior home support care or care of the disabled;
« aide familiale résidant » Personne qui fournit sans supervision, dans une résidence privée située au Canada dans laquelle elle vit, des soins à domicile à un enfant, à une personne âgée ou à une personne handicapée;
[7] Section 20(1.1) of the former Regulations is also relevant and provides as follows:
| An immigration officer shall not issue an employment authorization to any person who seeks admission to Canada as a live-in caregiver unless the person
(a) has successfully completed a course of study that is equivalent to successful completion of Canadian secondary school;
(b) has the following training or experience, in a field or occupation related to the employment for which the employment authorization is sought, namely,
(i) successful completion of six months of full-time training in a classroom setting, as part of the course of study referred to in paragraph (a) or otherwise, or
(ii) completion of one year of full-time paid employment, including at least six months of continuous employment with one employer, in that field or occupation within the three years immediately prior to the day on which the person submits an application for an employment authorization to a visa office; and(c) has the ability to speak, read and understand English or French at a level sufficient to communicate effectively in an unsupervised setting. |
|
L'agent d'immigration ne peut délivrer une autorisation d'emploi à une personne qui veut être admise au Canada en qualité d'aide familial résidant, à moins qu'elle ne réponde aux conditions suivantes:
a) avoir terminé avec succès des études d'un niveau équivalent à des études secondaires terminées avec succès au Canada
b) avoir la formation ou l'expérience suivantes dans un domaine ou une catégorie d'emploi lié à L,emploi pour lequel un permis de travail est demandé:
(i) une formation à plien de six mois, terminée avec succès, qui a été dispensée dans une salle de classe, que ce soit dans le cadre d'études visées à l'alinéa a) ou autrement,
(ii) une année d'emploi rémunérée à temps plien - don't au moins six mois continu auprès d'un seul employeur - dans ce domaine ou cette catégorie d'emploi au cours des trois années prédédant la date de présentation desa demande d'autorisation d'emploi au bureau des visas; c) pouvoir parler, lire et comprendre l'anglais ou le français suffisamment pour communiquer de façon dans une situation non supervisée.
|
[8] The live-in caregiver program under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 and former Regulations was a two-step process. First, an applicant had to obtain a validated job offer from an employer in Canada and then receive an employment authorization from a visa officer overseas, in order to enter Canada to begin work. The second step involved meeting the necessary requirements to be granted landing in Canada after being employed for at least two of three years after arrival in Canada. The present proceeding involves the first stage of that process, that is obtaining an employment authorization from an overseas visa officer.
[9] It appears from the refusal letter that the Visa Officer imported the requirements of section 20(3) of the former Regulations into his assessment of the Applicant's application. Section 20(3) provides as follows:
| In order to form an opinion for the purposes of paragraph1(a), an immigration officer shall consider
(a) whether the prospective employer has made reasonable efforts to hire or train Canadian citizens or permanent residents for the employment with respect to which an employment authorization is sought;
(b) the qualifications and experience of the applicant for the employment for which the employment authorization is sought; and
(c) whether the wages and working conditions offered are sufficient to attract and retain in employment Canadian citizens or permanent residents. |
|
Pour être en mesure de se faire une opinion aux fins de l'alinéa (1)a), l'agent d'immigration doit tenir compte des facteurs suivants, à savoir:
a) si l'employeur éventuel a fait des efforts raisonnables pour embaucher ou former des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents afin qu'ils puissent exercer l'emploi pour lequel une autorisation d'emploi a été sollicitée;
b) si le requérant possède les qualités et l'expérience voulues pour exercer l'emploi pour lequel une autorisation d'emploi a été sollicitée; et
c) si les conditions de travail et le salaire offerts sont de nature à attirer des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents pour qu'ils exercent et continuent d'exercer l'emploi en question. |
[10] This provision of the former Regulations identifies the general factors to be considered by a visa officer in deciding whether to issue an employment authorization. Section 20(3) refers to 20(1)(a) of the former Regulations; that addresses, generally, the issuance of an employment authorization. It seems to me that if the general provision concerning the issuance of employment authorizations were intended to apply to live-in caregivers, then section 20(3) would refer to paragraph (1.1) of section 20 of the former Regulations, as well as to paragraph (1)(a). A plain reading of the former Regulations does not support the inclusion of experience as a ground for refusing an employment authorization to a person who otherwise meets the requirements of section 20(1.1) and meets the definition of "live-in caregiver" pursuant to those former Regulations.
[11] In Mascarenas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 15 Imm. L.R. (3d) 137 (F.C.T.D.) Justice Gibson commented on section 20(1.1) of the former Regulations as follows, at paragraph 2:
Subsection 20(1.1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 defines the circumstances in which an immigration officer shall not issue an employment authorization to a person who seeks admission to Canada as a live-in caregiver...
[12] In the present case, the refusal letter shows that the Visa Officer imported consideration of experience in his assessment of the Applicant's application for an employment authorization, since the refusal letter specifically refers to section 20(3)(b) of the former Regulations.
[13] In my opinion, this reference was an error and thus the Visa Officer erred in law in assessing the Applicant's application. This is sufficient to justify intervention in his decision.
[14] The application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different visa officer in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Since the live-in caregiver program continues to exist under this statute and pursuant to section 350(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, this matter will be reconsidered in accordance with the current immigration regime. There is no question for certification.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter shall be remitted for redetermination in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.
There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-413-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDREW VENDIOLA v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: April 10, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER: HENEGHAN, J
APPEARANCES:
Shirish Chotalia FOR APPLICANT
W. Brad Hardstaff FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pundit & Chotalia
Barristers & Solicitors
Edmonton, Alberta FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR RESPONDENT