Starting a Side Business on a Closed Work Permit: Court Upholds Inadmissibility Finding
- Citation
- 2026 FC 1101
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-4544-25
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Gurinderpal Singh Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 1101
The applicant, a closed work permit holder authorized to work at a specific convenience store, started a janitorial services business with his cousin. The Immigration Division (ID) found him inadmissible to Canada for performing unauthorized work that competed in the Canadian labour market.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the ID's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that unpaid activities for a business, such as being the primary contact and advertising services, can constitute 'work' if they compete with Canadian workers, even if the business is not yet profitable.
Key Quote from the Court
...as soon as a shareholder or director provides a service to the corporation that is outside the normal role of a shareholder or director, that person “is in direct competition with the activities of Canadian citizens or permanent residents in the Canadian labour market" and is therefore “working” within the meaning of the [IRPR]. Such service provided by the shareholder or director could have been purchased by the corporation from a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and its provision therefore constitutes work.(at para 11)
Expert Takeaways
-
The Definition of 'Work' is Broad Any activity that competes in the Canadian labour market can be considered 'work', even if it is unpaid. This includes administrative tasks, advertising, being a point of contact, or any service that could otherwise be performed by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.
-
Mere 'Preparatory' Steps Are Not a Defence Once a business is operational, such as by advertising its services to the public and listing a contact person, its activities are no longer considered merely preparatory. The Court will look at the substance of the activities, not just whether clients have been secured or profits have been made.
-
Strict Adherence to Work Permit Conditions is Mandatory A closed work permit is highly restrictive. Engaging in any business activity outside the scope of the specified employer, role, and location can lead to a finding of inadmissibility under s. 41(a) of IRPA, with severe consequences for one's status in Canada.
-
Credibility is Crucial Decision-makers give significant weight to statements made to border officers. Inconsistent testimony later on, even with explanations like language barriers, may not be accepted. It is vital to be truthful and consistent in all interactions with immigration authorities.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Believe the officer got it wrong?
We bring unreasonable immigration refusals before the Federal Court of Canada.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Work Permit rulings
Federal Court Upholds Misrepresentation Finding from Single Verification Call
Federal Court Upholds Refusal: Weak Ties Doom Family Reunification Visas
Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal, Citing Lack of Proper Analysis
Federal Court: IRCC Cannot Repeat Flawed Reasoning in Redetermination
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)