Decision to refuse one’s LMO should be intelligible against the materials before the Officer, Euro Railings Ltd v Canada, 2015 FC 507

by Jenny Rokhline

A very short and crisp decision from Phelan J relating to Officer’s reasons to refuse an application for a Labour Market Opinion (“LMO”) (currently known as Labour Market Impact Assessment or LMIA).

The Applicant in this case submitted an application for LMO to hire a foreign national for the available welding position. In support of this application, the Applicant submitted evidence of ongoing recruitment efforts to locate a Canadian citizen or Permanent resident for the advertised position. In addition, the Applicant submitted the NOC list indicating that welders were in demand in Canada.

The Respondent refused the application basing its decision on the absence of a demonstrable labour shortage in this occupation and that Service Canada labour market information and analysis for the Ontario region indicates there is no demonstrable shortage of workers in this occupation in Ontario. This is despite that the welder’s occupation was listed as an occupation on the Federal Skills Trade Program [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][FSTP] indicating a need for such skills in Canada.

The Applicant was given an opportunity to make submission once it was informed of a negative LMO decision. Despite the submissions, the decision was not changed.

The Court noted that the Officer’s decision lacked intelligibility when assessed against the evidence that was in front of the Officer. The Court stresses that an Applicant was “at least entitled to an explanation – short, sharp and crisp – for the rejection of key evidence.” [para 14]

The full decision could be found here.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

How can we assist you?