Benoit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Benoit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2013-02-22
Neutral citation
2013 FC 185
File numbers
IMM-3657-12
Decision Content
Date: 20130222
Docket: IMM-3657-12
Citation: 2013 FC 185
Toronto, Ontario, February 22, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
JANNA MALIKA BENOIT
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The officer’s decision rejecting Ms. Benoit’s application for permanent residence in Canada in the “Canadian experience class” for not meeting the work experience described in National Occupational Classification (NOC) 6211 is unreasonable because the test set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations] was not applied.
[2] Paragraph 87.1(2)(c) of the Regulations required that Ms. Benoit “[have] performed a substantial number of the main duties […] including all of the essential duties” listed in the NOC under which she listed her experience. In NOC 6211, under which she applied, there are no “essential” duties, only “main” duties. Accordingly, Ms. Benoit was required to have performed a “substantial number” of these main duties in her job with the Granite Club, the job she listed as qualifying experience.
[3] The officer was therefore required to determine if Ms. Benoit “performed a substantial number of the main duties.” However, the officer’s decision as disclosed by the CAIPS notes is merely the following: “Duties listed in job letter do not match duties in NOC description; ordering and scheduling is done by manager with PA’s assistance.” “Ordering” and “scheduling” are no more than mere components of the main duties listed in NOC 6211. Thus, it is not clear if the officer at any point turned his or her mind to the real question, which was whether – on the whole – the duties were a substantial match.
[4] Further, as counsel for the respondent rightly concedes, it is clear that Ms. Benoit did perform “some” of the duties listed in NOC 6211. I am not prepared to accept, as was submitted, that the officer found that she did not at all “supervise and coordinate the activities of workers in unit groups” as described in the preamble to NOC 6211.
[5] In my view, no amount of “supplement[ing],” to quote Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para 12, salvages the officer’s decision. The Regulations clearly require that only a “substantial” number of the duties be performed. That is the test. The officer in this case singled out only parts of two of the eight main duties from NOC 6211 and on that basis concluded that Ms. Benoit’s experience at the Granite Club did not qualify. While I cannot positively conclude that there was “substantial” overlap between Ms. Benoit’s experience at the Granite Club and NOC 6211 – that assessment must be done by the officer – I am satisfied that her responsibilities at the Granite Club were far from being such a total mismatch that her application for permanent residence has no chance of success. Indeed, at a glance, the duties are a substantial match.
[6] Accordingly, this application is granted and Ms. Benoit’s application for permanent residence is remitted back for decision by a different officer to decide whether Ms. Benoit “performed a substantial number of the main duties” listed in NOC 6211 in her position at the Granite Club. No question was proposed for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is allowed and the applicant’s application is remitted back for decision by a different officer in accordance with these reasons.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3657-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: JANNA MALIKA BENOIT v THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 21, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: ZINN J.
DATED: February 22, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Stella I. Anaele
FOR THE APPLICANT
Bradley Bechard
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
STELLA IRIAH ANAELE
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT