Thummar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
The principal applicant applied for a work permit under a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment for a cook job in Manitoba, and the spouse applied for an accompanying open work permit. The principal applicant said full-time work as a cook at a restaurant in India had begun in December 2022. IRCC's fairness letter said a person reached at the restaurant had denied that the principal applicant worked there. He replied with a sworn affidavit from the restaurant's owner confirming the employment and denying that any verification call had been received, plus bank records and photos of monthly salary cheques with matching deposit receipts. The officer preferred the phone call, said the bank statement could have been altered and the cheques covered only a limited period, and found misrepresentation, which carries a five-year bar.
What the Court Decided
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, set aside the February 3, 2024 decision and returned both applications to a different officer. The officer had concentrated on the negative points and had not balanced the owner's affidavit against the cheques, deposit receipts and bank deposits. The suspicion that the bank statement might have been altered was not backed by any finding that it had been, and was not reconciled with the matching cheques and receipts. Describing ten months of cheques as a limited period was not explained. The officer also did not weigh the weakness of the call itself, which depended on a person identifying themselves orally with no independent confirmation that they spoke for the employer. No question was certified.
Verification calls and emails are a common source of misrepresentation findings against work permit and Express Entry applicants. This decision is a useful reference for the point that an officer cannot simply favour a short, unverified call over a detailed response without weighing everything and explaining the choice.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓IRCC says a phone call or email to your overseas employer contradicted your employment claim.
- ✓You answered a fairness letter with an employer affidavit, pay records and bank documents.
- ✓The officer questioned your documents by saying they 'could' have been altered, without finding that they were.
Key Takeaways
- A misrepresentation finding must rest on all the evidence, including the applicant's reply to the fairness letter, not just the most damaging item.
- A suspicion that a document might be altered is not a finding that it was altered.
- Officers must account for the limits of a verification call, such as who actually answered.