Federal Court Overturns R205(a) Work Permit Refusal – Significant Benefit & Family Ties Clarified (2026 FC 146)

Federal Court Overturns R205(a) Work Permit Refusal – Significant Benefit & Family Ties Clarified (2026 FC 146)

This decision reinforces two critical principles:

1. Visa officers must provide justified reasoning when rejecting “significant benefit” claims under R205(a).
2. Accompanying family members cannot be treated as determinative of temporary intent.

Our firm represented the Applicant in this successful judicial review.

Background: The Refusal

The Applicant applied under the International Mobility Program – Start-Up Business Class, relying on section 205(a) IRPR, which permits work authorization where the proposed work creates significant economic, social, or cultural benefits for Canada.

The officer refused the application on two grounds:

1. The business plan allegedly failed to demonstrate significant benefit.
2. The Applicant’s spouse and child accompanying him weakened his ties to Iran.

The Federal Court reviewed whether this decision met the reasonableness standard under Vavilov.

Issue 1: R205(a) “Significant Benefit” Requires Real Analysis

The Applicant submitted a detailed 70-page business plan.

The officer’s reasoning consisted of stating that it was “not clear” how the business would create viable benefit and repeating the wording of section 205(a).

The Court found this inadequate.

Why?

1. The officer failed to engage with the evidence.
2. No explanation was provided as to why the business model failed.
3. There was no discernible analytical path.
4. Courts cannot speculate to fill missing reasoning.

The decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility — the hallmarks required under Vavilov.

This is a critical clarification for entrepreneurs and start-up applicants whose applications are refused using boilerplate language.

Issue 2: Accompanying Family Is Not Determinative

The officer concluded that because the Applicant’s spouse and child would accompany him, his ties to Iran were weakened and his motivation to return diminished.

The Court rejected this reasoning.

While accompanying family may be relevant, officers must weigh:

1. Family remaining in the home country
2. Professional and economic ties
3. Absence of ties in Canada

The officer failed to consider that the Applicant’s widowed mother and professional connections remained in Iran.

The Court confirmed that treating accompanying family as determinative is unreasonable.

Practical Implications for Start-Up and R205(a) Applicants

This case confirms:

1. Significant benefit findings must be evidence-based.
2. Officers must engage with business plans meaningfully.
3. Family accompaniment does not automatically defeat temporary intent.
4. Conclusory reasoning is reviewable in Federal Court.

Entrepreneur work permit refusals frequently rely on generalized statements. This decision reinforces that such reasoning is vulnerable on judicial review.

When Should You Consider Judicial Review?

If your work permit was refused because:

1. The officer said your business was “not viable” without explanation,
2. The decision repeats statutory wording without analysis, 
3. Your family accompanying you was treated as determinative,

Then you may have grounds for judicial review.

You can also read our related articles on:

1. Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions
2. Get Moving! How Mandamus Can Fast-Track Your Stuck Visa/PR Application

Frequently Asked Questions

What is section 205(a) IRPR?

It allows work permits where the foreign national’s work creates or maintains significant social, cultural, or economic benefits for Canada.

Can an officer simply say my business lacks significant benefit?

No. The officer must explain why, based on the evidence provided.

Does bringing my spouse and children automatically weaken my temporary intent?

No. Officers must weigh all ties, including family remaining abroad and professional connections.

What happens after a judicial review win?

The refusal is set aside and the matter is returned to a different officer for redetermination.

Conclusion

The Federal Court allowed the application and ordered redetermination by a different officer.

This decision strengthens accountability in R205(a) refusals and reinforces that immigration decisions must be justified, not assumed.

If your start-up or entrepreneur work permit has been refused, you should seek legal advice promptly.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.