Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia

Citation: Singh v. Nova Scotia (Labour, Skills and Immigration), 2026 NSSC 120

Date: 20260417

Docket: BWT No.  545248

Registry: Bridgewater

Between:

Ravinder Singh

Applicant

v.

Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration of Nova Scotia

Respondent

By the Court:

[1]             The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Respondent, to refuse his application under the Nova Scotia Nominee Program (“NSNP”), Occupations in Demand stream.  The Applicant points to a letter issued to him on July 3, 2025, that states:

Unfortunately, the documentation provided does not confirm that you currently hold legal status in Canada.  Maintaining valid status is a key requirement under both Canadian immigration law (IRPA s. 21(1), 22(1), and 41) and the NSNP eligibility criteria.

As such, your application has been closed for not meeting the minimum eligibility requirements of the stream.

[2]             The Applicant sought judicial review on the following grounds, as outlined in his Notice for Judicial Review:

[3]             The Respondent says the decision of the Officer was reasonable as the eligibility criteria are ongoing and must continue to be met by applicants from the time the application is made until the time the applicant receives their permanent residency.  It requests this judicial review application be dismissed, with costs.

[4]             For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Facts

[5]             The following is a concise summary of the facts contained in the Record that was filed with the Court on October 23, 2025:

Issues

[6]             The issues to be considered on this judicial review are as follows:

Standard of Review

[7]             Both parties agree that the standard of review in this case is reasonableness in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.  In addition, the court in 1445913 Ontario Inc. v. The Province of Nova Scotia, 2024 NSSC 70, confirmed that reasonableness is the standard of review for decisions made under the NSNP framework (see para 26.)

[8]             The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal recently summarized the principles of a reasonableness review in EMC Emergency Medical Care Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2024 NSCA 55, at paras. 32-47.  Specifically, the Court of Appeal noted:

[33]      Reasonableness is a “reasons first” approach. The reviewing court does not start with its view, i.e. it does not fashion its “own yardstick … to measure what the administrator did”, and then proceed with “disguised correctness review”. Rather, the reviewing court “must begin its inquiry into the reasonableness of the decision by examining the reasons provided with ‘respectful attention’ and seeking to understand the reasoning process followed by the decision maker to arrive at its conclusion”. (Vavilov, paras. 83-84; Mason, paras. 8, 58, 60 and 62-63)

…

[40]   Nonetheless, the decision must satisfy Vavilov’s minimum standards, i.e. the “hallmarks of reasonableness”. These are “justification, transparency and intelligibility”. (Vavilov, paras. 99 and 103; Mason, para. 60)

[41]         Intelligibility and transparency mean a decision will be unreasonable where “the reasons read in conjunction with the record do not make it possible to understand the decision maker’s reasoning on a critical point” (Vavilov, paras. 99 and 103; Mason, para. 60). A question-begging gap or incoherence on a critical point may impair intelligibility. Mere repetition of statutory language followed by a peremptory conclusion challenges transparency, “will rarely assist a reviewing court” and is “no substitute for statements of fact, analysis, inference and judgment” (Vavilov, para. 102; Mason, para. 65). 

[42]         In this case, intelligibility and transparency require that the reviewing court be able to understand the arbitration board’s reasoning from the board’s reasons, supported by the permissible contextual aids I have noted above. (Vavilov, paras. 88-94, 97 and 110; Mason, paras. 61, 67 and 70) 

[43]         Reviewing courts “cannot expect administrative decision makers to ‘respond to every argument or line of possible analysis’ [citation omitted], or to ‘make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate, leading to its final conclusion’ ”[citation omitted]. That is because “[t]o impose such expectations would have a paralyzing effect on the proper functioning of administrative bodies and would needlessly compromise important values such as efficiency and access to justice”. Rather, the questions for the reviewing court are: was the decision maker “actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it”, were the parties’ concerns “heard”, and does an omission reflect “inadvertent gaps and other flaws in its reasoning”? [Vavilov, para. 128; Mason, para. 74].

[44]      The third hallmark is justification. In Vavilov, the majority explained:

•   An outcome derived from reasoning with a significant error is unreasonable. The reviewing court “must be able to trace the decision maker’s reasoning without encountering any fatal flaws in its overarching logic, and it must be satisfied that ‘there is [a] line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived’ [citation omitted]”. (Vavilov, para. 102).

•     On the other hand, a “minor misstep” or a “merely superficial or peripheral” shortcoming will not suffice to overturn an administrative decision. The flaw must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable”. (Vavilov, para. 100).

•   To assess whether there is a sufficiently central or significant flaw, the reviewing court asks whether the administrative decision “is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and … is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”. If yes, “[t]he reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court defer to such a decision”. If no, the decision “fails to provide a transparent and intelligible justification” and is unreasonable. (Vavilov, paras. 84-85, 99, 100-107; Mason, paras. 8, 59, 64).

•     Vavilov, paras. 105-135, and Mason, paras. 65-76 elaborated on the factors that “constrain the decision maker”, under this test, and their utility in a particular case: the governing statutory scheme, other statutes or common law, principles of statutory interpretation, evidence before the decision maker, submissions of the parties, past practices and decisions, and the impact of the decision on the affected individuals. The factors are “not a checklist” and will vary in application and significance from case to case (Vavilov, para. 106; Mason, para. 66).

[9]             To distill these principles, it is for this Court to review the Program Officer’s decision by examining the reasons provided with ‘respectful attention’ to ascertain whether the Program Officer was “actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it”, whether the Applicant’s concerns were “heard”, and whether the decision was “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and … is justified in relation to the facts and law.”

Issue #1 – Was the Program Officer’s decision reasonable?

[10]         The decision of the Program Officer was reasonable.  It outlined what stream the application related to and what eligibility criteria under that stream the Applicant failed to meet.  It highlighted both sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that were applicable to the decision as well as the NSNP eligibility criteria.

[11]         Specifically, the decision stated that the Applicant did not currently hold legal status, and that such legal status was a key requirement for approval in the NSNP, Occupations in Demand stream.

[12]         The decision of the Program Officer was properly outlined, took into account the documentation provided by the Applicant, and confirmed the Applicant did not currently hold legal status in Canada, which was a requirement pursuant to the IRPA and the NSNP eligibility criteria.  As such, the Program Officer’s decision was transparent and intelligible. 

[13]         However, the Applicant says the decision was not justified as there was no requirement for the Applicant to maintain legal status in Canada – only that the Applicant needed to establish valid legal status at the time of submitting his Application.  

[14]         With respect to this argument, the Applicant may be misinterpreting the Application Guide for the NSNP, Occupations in Demand stream. 

[15]         As outlined above, the Guide specifies that proof of immigration status in the applicant’s country of residence is an eligibility requirement.  In addition, the Guide expressly indicates that a nomination may be withdrawn, at any time, if “you no longer meet the eligibility requirements of the Occupations in Demand stream.” 

[16]         In contrast, the only reference the Applicant relies on to suggest the legal status requirement only exists until the application is submitted, is in reference to the documents that one must submit with their application.

[17]         Certain sections of the Guide may be open to interpretation.  But what this Court is only able to assess is whether the Program Officer gave due regard to the provisions of the Guide and made a decision that is in keeping with the contents of the Guide and the applicable legislation.  Given the Guide expressly notes that a nomination can be withdrawn at any time prior to receiving a permanent resident visa and arriving in Canada IF the applicant no longer meets the eligibility requirements, the Program Officer’s decision is in keeping with the provisions of the Guide.

[18]         The Applicant relies solely on the Guide.  He does not address or review the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and he did not address the April 7, 2025 email which plainly outlined that the Applicant needed to do one of three things, at that time, to continue with his application: (1) submit a status extension application before expiration of his most recent status document (2) provide proof that the status extension application was granted or (3) return to his country of origin to await a final decision.

[19]         Overall, the Applicant’s concerns were “heard” and the decision of the Program Officer was reasonable when reviewing the facts and law.

Issue #2 – Evidence on legal status

[20]         The Applicant submitted that the Program Officer’s finding that the Applicant did not have legal status, was not founded on evidence available to the Program Officer at the time of the decision. 

[21]         The Court has a hard time understanding this position as it is clear and unchallenged that the Applicant did not have legal status at the time of the decision.  This was further acknowledged, in oral submissions, by the Applicant’s counsel. 

[22]         Moreover, all emails and supporting documents that the Applicant submitted were contained in the record.  The refusal letter also highlighted the “documentation provided.”

[23]         Therefore, there is no evidence before this Court to suggest the Program Officer did not properly consider the evidence and there is confirmation in the decision letter that documentation was provided but such documentation did not confirm the Applicant had legal status in Canada. This is logical as the Applicant did not have legal status in Canada.

[24]         As such, the Program Officer’s decision was in keeping with the evidence available to the Program Officer at the time of the assessment and decision.

Issue #3 – Procedural Fairness

[25]         In the Notice of Judicial Review, the Applicant noted issues of processing timelines and the effect of those on people being able to maintain status.  However, no evidence was filed in relation to processing timelines and the Court had nothing in the record dealing with this issue.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing a lack of procedural fairness and he failed to offer any evidence on processing timelines and no such submissions are contained in his briefs.

[26]         However, in the Applicant’s reply brief, he does reference that the Program Officer did not seek clarification or updated documentation regarding the Applicant’s status and specifically the fact that he had filed a restoration application that was in process.

[27]         Specifically, the Applicant says “basic procedural fairness required the decision maker to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to clarify his status before rendering a negative decision.”

[28]         The record establishes that the Program Officer had a copy of the restoration application, and the June 16, 2025 letter from the Applicant’s immigration consultant that outlined the Applicant’s position as to his restoration application and the effect on the NSNP application. Therefore, the Applicant was given an opportunity to clarify his status and did so on June 16, 2025.

[29]         Finally, the Applicant says the decision of the Program Officer was inconsistent with the purpose of the immigration program.  Again, the only evidence in the record as to the “purpose of the immigration program” is the Guide applicable to the NSNP, Occupations in Demand stream. As previously outlined, the decision of the Program Officer was reasonable and in keeping with the Guide and the outlined requirements.  In addition, the refusal letter specifically notes the sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the requirement that one hold valid legal status in the country in which they reside at the time of their application.

[30]         It is unknown what the Applicant relies on to say the “purpose of the immigration program… is to recognize individuals who are contributing to the province’s economy, workforce and communities.”  Regardless, there was no procedural unfairness in the Program Officer’s decision to rely on requirements of the program guide and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[31]         I find no issues of procedural fairness in relation to the decision of the Program Officer.

Conclusion

[32]         The decision of the Program Officer, dated July 3, 2025, rightfully outlined that as of July 3, 2025, the Applicant did not hold legal status in Canada.  As such, his application under the NSNP, Occupations in Demand stream was refused for failing to meet the minimum eligibility requirements.  This decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

[33]         The Application for Judicial Review is dismissed with costs payable to the Respondent.  If the parties cannot agree on costs, the Court will accept written submissions (not to exceed 5 pages in length) within 30 days of this decision.

Kelly, J.